If Psystar do win this (which I highly doubt), all Apple has to do is change the chipsets within all forthcoming Macs to a proprietary one that they own and all further versions of OS X will only support that.
Better still for Apple, would to be supply OS X in EPROM inside the system... no disc. updates only online to validated systems, perhaps over iTunes Store. On "install" the OS is installed from the EPROM onto HD as usual, updated supplied as a new EPROM image which gets written into a second bank. Having 2 EPROM banks allows current and previous versions of the OS to reside in the system, allowing for fallback.
Any other non Apple systems running OS X would then most defiantly be illegal as they would have had to steel firmware, which like a copied BIOS would, Im sure, be upheld as piracy.
Apple has said that Snow Leopard is mostly a performance tuning release but I think there may be a hidden agenda. Does Apple claim anywhere that all current Intel Macs will be able to run Snow Leopard? The fact that it shares the name Leopard may imply that it is just another version of the current operating system designed only for the new generation of Macs. Snow Leopard may actually turn out to be an awesome UPGRADE that the Psystars will not be able to crack, effectively making their knockoff products clearly second rate since they will only be able to run the old Leopard. BTW, I have 3 Intel Macs for sale.
The group think of the anti-DRM crowd (of which I ascribe) is that DRM and copyright should be mutually exclusive, as there is no means for the DRM to "time out" at copyright expiration. A start-up check would count as DRM. An author/publisher/creator should be entitled to either copyright protection or DRM but not both.
So, by Pystar's logic, they are providing a compatibility layer to allow software to be run on their systems. It is a very weak stretch, but there is a small bit of logic there.
Interesting.
I would argue that no one except Psystar is really trying to conflate or confuse copyright and the EULA for OS-X though. The reason I have a hard time understanding their argument is because they are purposely confusing the two, which (if I understand you right) you agree with also.
They say the start up check is "not really (proper) copyright protection" when from my point of view (and most people's I would argue), it's not intended to be. It's just a check for hardware as part of the EULA and totally expected, mundane, etc. I'm pretty sure that Apple is actually arguing that Psystar violated the copyright by reproducing the software and hacked the copyright protection by hacking the software and associated patches, not by circumventing the start up check.
I think at the end it will turn out that what is behind Psystar is more of an idiot savant than a giant corporation. I do think someone is funding them just to see what happens, but my take on that is that it happened *after* the original loser started the ball rolling sort of speak.
I say this because the arguments they are using are quite brilliant in a way, and denote someone of great intellectual power. But they also contain huge blind spots and great idiocy as well. I think we are dealing with a "genius who never went to school" (much) and is woefully lacking in any kind of common sense. This kind of wild hubris often comes from people who have a giant chip on their shoulder from being much smarter than the average bear, but who still fail miserably due to no education or some kind of other social difficulties like extreme poverty.
Maybe some Eastern European guy who grew up in a social mess and taught himself everything he knows about computers kind of guy???
This kind of wild hubris often comes from people who have a giant chip on their shoulder from being much smarter than the average bear, but who still fail miserably due to no education or some kind of other social difficulties like extreme poverty.
To quote Julius Caesar from the BBC/HBO TV series Rome...
You are missing the point, Apple does not own all the code in mac OS
"Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and is derived from the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD).[7] Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in Nextstep, the core of Mac OS X."
Could be that Apple missed a few bits and pieces, why would Psystar flush cash on a pointless defence ?
Apple are saying that Psystar is creating software that breaks their copyright protection, Psystar are saying that a start up check does not qualify as copyright protection. A hardware check has nothing to do with an EULA, an EULA is a contract between the user of the software and Apple.
You are missing the point. PsyStar is free to install BSD *nix on their computers. Why don't they instead of wasting their time with the creative routines of something called Mac OS X?
You are missing the point. A start-up check is what virtually every piece of well-written software does to ensure that the software will run effectively. If the law came down on Apple and said you could no longer write software to check for valid hardware, can you imagine the precedent? Writing software that check that the DRM hardware is there would now be illegal? Fat chance!
UNIX is only the base of OS X not its totality. Psystar is free to use UNIX, OPEN GL, h.264, mp3, webkit and all the other open source software Apple uses.
The API framework, development framework, and graphic user interface are Apple's proprietary property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthletter
You are missing the point, Apple does not own all the code in mac OS "Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and is derived from the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD).[7] Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in Nextstep, the core of Mac OS X."
Your logic seems to be fighting against itself to justify that Apple only sells OS upgrades.
You basically seem to be agreeing that every Apple computer comes with an implicit license for OS X (it's the only way you can justify that installing the OS on the repaired system is still an upgrade). Just to keep it simple, let's say that he only repairs computers that would have come with 10.5. If every Mac comes with an implicit OS license, why then would you have an issue with him burning a copy of OS X for each computer since they already have a license for that software? If you have a license, it shouldn't be able to be considered theft at that point.
Your logic is flawed. Just because you repair Macs for a living doesn't entitle you to buy one retail copy of OSX and install it on multiple Macs. You would have to give up an ORIGINAL copy with the Mac you installed it on when you re-sell the Mac. You just have to add the cost of the OSX upgrade when re-selling that Mac.
What you're saying is that I can go out and buy one copy of OSX and pass it around to all my friends (with Macs) and let them upgrade their Macs with my copy. Just because they have a OSX license with their Mac doesn't mean that they are entitile to a free upgrade with my copy. Each Mac requires a separate license for upgrading. Each retail copy of OSX is exactly ONE license. (Except the family pack.) It doeasn't matter if you're an individual with one Mac or a business with many Macs.
Apple does sell the OS separate from the hardware. The boxed version of OS X is NOT an upgrade version; it is a full version of the software. No where on Apple's site is a previous version of OS X stated as being required.
Up until OSX.5 the retail box stated that a previous version of OSX is required. I have a retail copy of OSX.3 and it will not install unless it detects a previous version of OSX on any of my HD. It's stated right on the box that I must have OSX.2 or below. But it does not need any of the software code from the previous OSX to install. It's only checking for a previous license. OSX.5 does this (license check) with a hardware check.
With a Windows upgrade copy, it just ask you to insert a copy of a previous version of Windows into your CD/DVD drive to verify a previous license. (That's if it doesn't see a previous version on the HD.) It too is an upgrade and states it right on the box. But it also installs the full version. Without having any of the previuos OS on the HD. To be considered an upgrade, it's the previous license that matters. Not the actual software codes from a previuos version. It's the same with Adobe Photoshop. An upgrade copy of Photoshop will install the full version once you prove you have a previous license.
Quote:
I guess I'm just missing the fundamental difference. In your example of Microsoft fixing XP/Vista to only work on Dell computers, how is that different than what Apple has done. Except they've made it even more of a "sweetheart deal" as you called it by making the hardware themselves instead of contracting with a 3rd party (which would cut into profits).
What would your reaction be if the next Windows security update brought along a bit of code that checked for the chip(s) that Apple uses to lock OS X to their hardware? If the chip was found, Windows would immediately crash to the "blue screen of death." I know there are many people on here who use Windows either through Bootcamp or a virtual machine. How many of them would suddenly cry foul of such an action, despite the fact that there is NO DIFFERENCE between that and what Apple has done.
Isn't it just a handful of system-critical files that Apple has locked to the hardware? Wouldn't the vast majority of OS X function just fine with no software modifications? So where is the difference. All Apple has done is taken a fully functional OS and sewn a couple of pieces to their hardware in an effort to destroy compatibility with other computers.
I wouldn't be surprised if the OS X hackers who Apple has chosen to generally ignore didn't get dragged in as part of Psystar's defense/attack.
But in a way MS do lock their OS to a specific companies hardware. That OEM disk you get with a Dell only works on a Dell and only on that model of Dell, for that year. I'm not even sure if you can use that OEM Windows disk as proof of a previous license if you wanted to load a retail upgrade version of Windows on to a blank HD of a PC you built from scratch. It's the same with all OEM version of Windows that comes with all hardware companies. The OEM license of Windows you get with a Dell does not entitle you to use it on a Sony or HP. And there's even less of a difference between a Dell and a Sony or HP PC. Than there is between an Intel Mac and a PC.
So a PC hardware company can lock the MS Windows OS you get from them to their own hardware. And MS can license a version of their OS that will only work on a certain company's hardware. Why can't Apple do the same? Apple makes both hardware and software.
The group think of the anti-DRM crowd (of which I ascribe) is that DRM and copyright should be mutually exclusive, as there is no means for the DRM to "time out" at copyright expiration. A start-up check would count as DRM. An author/publisher/creator should be entitled to either copyright protection or DRM but not both.
So, by Pystar's logic, they are providing a compatibility layer to allow software to be run on their systems. It is a very weak stretch, but there is a small bit of logic there.
Why would the DRM need to "time out" at the expiration of the copyrighted work? The original copyright owner is not obligated to provide, for free, their once copyrighted work to everyone that wants it. Once the copyright expires, it's public domain and you are free to break that DRM without any legal repercussion. The original copyright owner don't have to supply you with any help to unlock the DRM or a DRM free copy of it.
Up until OSX.5 the retail box stated that a previous version of OSX is required. I have a retail copy of OSX.3 and it will not install unless it detects a previous version of OSX on any of my HD. It's stated right on the box that I must have OSX.2 or below. But it does not need any of the software code from the previous OSX to install. It's only checking for a previous license. OSX.5 does this (license check) with a hardware check.
The 10.5 DVD installer does not do a check for previous OS installs. I have installed the retail version on a new from the factory HD upgrade in a MBP.
I have done fresh installs on MBP & iMac upgrade drives several times over the last several years and never been denied by there not being anything on the HD.
The requirement is for legal purposes, not literal you cannot use the disk because it physically will refuse to work.
The 10.5 DVD installer does not do a check for previous OS installs. I have installed the retail version on a new from the factory HD upgrade in a MBP.
I have done fresh installs on MBP & iMac upgrade drives several times over the last several years and never been denied by there not being anything on the HD.
The requirement is for legal purposes, not literal you cannot use the disk because it physically will refuse to work.
You are verifying what I stated. I stated "up until OSX.5". Which means OSX.4 and below. Even OSX.0 and OSX.1 required that you have OS9 on the HD before it installed. OSX.5 is the first version of OSX that don't require a previous version of an OS software on the HD. It verifies your previuos license by checking that the hardware is that of a Mac.
In fact I don't understand why OSX.0 to OSX.3 even checked for a previous OS on the HD. Since all Macs at the time these OS came out were PPC chips. (G3, G4 and G5) All the upgrade OSX had to do was check for the chip since a Mac is proof of a previous license. This would have save me a lot of work. Since I like to do a clean installs and thus I lose my previous OS version on my HD when I do this. Which means that I must go through the trouble of loading OS9, then OSX.1 and finally OSX.3 or OSX.4 when I have to reformat my drive.
Correction- I did a quick check because I thought OSX.4 came out before the Intel Macs. And it seems that OSX.4.0 was introduce before the Intel Macs and only required that you had a G3,G4 or G5 chip at the time. No previous version of OSX required. When the Intel Macs came out the requirement for OSX.4.4 change to OSX.3.9 or earlier. Obviously, when Apple introduced the Intel Macs, they couldn't put G3,G4, G5 or Intel chip as a requirement. As this would also include a PC. When OSX.5 came out it simply stated a Mac instead of naming the chip.
I wish that all the media, including this one, would do their home work prior to posting something like this. It took me 2 minutes to find out. Why are people who are reporting this crap wouldn't do the research first?
thats the same one (for disc & print) mentioned in the above article. maybe you should have clicked on the link first.
this one, on the other hand, mentions "computer program": TX0005401457
Who says the word 'upgrade' needs to appear? The EULA very specifically states that it can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware. Since all Apple-branded hardware comes with OS X pre-installed, that makes it an upgrade version - even if they don't specifically call it that.
Nobody says the word "upgrade" must appear, but if it's not there, it's reasonable for a consumer to assume it's a full version. That's a given in the computer world. Apple knows that. They have never referred to OS X as an upgrade. They're revising history to suit their needs. And if it's suddenly an "upgrade" why didn't Apple offer lower prices to those of us who already owned an earlier version of the software?
See, none of it fits the definition of an upgrade. Why defend what is clearly a lie on the part of Apple?
Oh, and not all Macs came with OS X preinstalled. If I buy a used Mac originally sold with OS 9 but able to run OS X, does that mean I cannot buy and install OS X? Is that an acceptable upgrade path according to Apple? I'm not sure. I can't find any reference to OS X being an upgrade on their site so I have no way to confirm.
I have no problem with using Wikipedia as a source. However, you will notice that this Wikipedia link says a citation is needed for the claim you are trying to push forward as fact. More importantly, while your statement is correct, it is misleading. That is because you can file for the copyright registration after the infringement has taken place. Yet, there are benefits to filing early. You have to file early to ask for statutory damages and attorney fees. You can register late and still ask for actual damages and obtain an injunction. See here. The benefit of statutory damages is you don't have to prove actual loss, which in this case might be hard for Apple to do (if Apple in fact didn't registrar it's OS, which is a bit far fetched).
Let us be honest: Apple doesn't care so much about statutory damages or attorney fees because Psystar likely can't afford either. It will go Bankrupt if Apple wins and Apple won't get a dime. Apple knows this. Apple merely wants an injunction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog
Copyright registration is required "before the owner can peruse a case in court."
Nobody says the word "upgrade" must appear, but if it's not there, it's reasonable for a consumer to assume it's a full version. That's a given in the computer world. Apple knows that. They have never referred to OS X as an upgrade. They're revising history to suit their needs. And if it's suddenly an "upgrade" why didn't Apple offer lower prices to those of us who already owned an earlier version of the software?
See, none of it fits the definition of an upgrade. Why defend what is clearly a lie on the part of Apple?
In the history of the computer world, an "upgrade" version of a software is the "full" version at a discount price because you paid for a "full" version sometime in the past. It has nothing to do with "updating" an older version of that software. Therefore, a previous version is not required for the "upgrade" software to work. A previous version is only required to verify that you own a previous version before it will install a newer "full" version. Sometimes all you need is the install disk or serial number of the previous version. A previous version is what's require before you are entitle to the discount of the "upgrade" version.
Now some software companies only allow you to "upgrade" 2 or 3 times before you have to buy another "full" version. And some software companies charge for "upgrades" on a sliding scale. The older the version you're trying to "update", the less the discount to "upgrade" to the newest version.
You are thinking that an "upgrade" version only contains the necessary codes to bring an older version up to date. And this is why it's cheaper than the "full" version. Which contains all the codes to install the newer version.
OSX retail didn't suddenly become an "upgrade". It has always been an "upgrade" and the price has always reflected that. There is no need for a "full" version since OSX is only meant to run on a Mac. And All Mac came with a previous version of an OS. If you lost the disk that came with your Mac or got a Mac off eBay without any software, then you have to buy another license to get an OS back in your computer. But you are entitle to the "upgrade" price because owning a Mac implies that you have a previous license. Even if the OS is not there or no longer working. If you damage your original disk, you can probably mail it back to Apple and they will replace it with a minimum charge.
Quote:
Oh, and not all Macs came with OS X preinstalled. If I buy a used Mac originally sold with OS 9 but able to run OS X, does that mean I cannot buy and install OS X? Is that an acceptable upgrade path according to Apple? I'm not sure. I can't find any reference to OS X being an upgrade on their site so I have no way to confirm.
I don't think OSX.0 (Cheetah) was ever available in retail. It only came with a Mac (along with OS9) or was available as a free beta download.
OSX.1 (Puma) requires OS9 installed on the HD of a qualifying Mac.
OSX.2 (Jaguar) required OSX.0, OSX.1 or (I believe) OS9 on the HD.
OSX.3 (Panther) (and I believe OSX.4.4 (Tiger) (Intel version)) requires any previous version of OSX on the HD. Having just OS9 do not meet the requirements.
OSX.4.0 (Tiger) (PPC version) and OSX.5 (Leopard) only requires that it's a Mac. But I don't think OSX.5 support the G3 chip. But it will load on to older G4 and G5 Macs.
So to answer your question. If you still have OS9 installed, you can install OSX.1 and I think OSX.2. And from there, all newer OSX. (Providing it supports the older PPC chip.)
If it's a blank drive, then you can install OSX.4.0 and OSX.5.(Providing it supports the older PPC chip.) And OSX.0, if you can find a copy of it.
Correction- After researching the cat names for he various OSX I realize that OSX.0 (Cheetah) was available in retail. I remember all the PR for Cheetah. For some reason I thought Puma (OSX.1) was OSX.0. As I don't remember any PR relating to Puma.
Ok guys, there seems to be a slight misunderstanding about the way the Mac OS X install disks are supposed to work.
1. The OS install disks that come with the machines include a hardware check as a part of the OS installer. They will ONLY work on the same model of computer as the one they were shipped with. If you try to run the installer on a computer that is not the same model, you will get an error message like "Mac OS X cannot be installed on this computer".
2. Not only do the in-box disks check for hardware, but the retail copies only contain drivers for models authorized to run OS X. For example, the build number of OS X pre-10.5.6 for the Aluminum macbooks, was different from the build number of the white-plastic ones. Why? There were several hardware changes, and the drivers and other software necessary to run them had to be added into it.
3. To get an installation of the OS to work on a non-apple system (it's well documented on the OSx86 site and beyond my abilities to interpret properly) is something that HAS to be hacked together. EFI emulation and all that not-withstanding, you would have to repackage the disk to make something that is a valid restore.
Now, as far as the retail disks go there is one other point I'd like to make. They sell for $129.00. Apple can easily (and quite correctly) equate this to an upgrade price copy of their main competitor in the industry. They could argue that this is not only obviously an upgrade copy by virtue of the EULA and system requirements (http://support.apple.com/kb/TA24950?viewlocale=en_US), but also by common pricing comparisons between comparable products.
As far as the copyright of Mac OS X is concerned. I have no clue why everyone is stuck on 2007 and the term CD. CD and DVD are not distinct and separate media types in the world of actual bytes, and no audio/video. Not only that, but the drives are actually the same damn drive (and have been for quite some time). LOL. To those stuck on the copyright that was issues in 2007 for OS X..the term Mac OS X itself, has been copyrighted and trademarked since at least 2001. The 2007 registration appears to be just an update. Psystar isn't accused of necessarily violating strictly the updates for that particular application. They are accused of using the terms "Mac" "Mac OS X" etc. Terms that have been legally apple's for many years already.
But in a way MS do lock their OS to a specific companies hardware. That OEM disk you get with a Dell only works on a Dell and only on that model of Dell, for that year.
No, an OEM version is not locked to a hardware manufacturer. If the system comes with some sort of restore disc, that IS locked to that system configuration because it's a copy of the system state after it rolled off the assembly line. A true Windows OEM disc has no software/hardware locks in it.
Quote:
I'm not even sure if you can use that OEM Windows disk as proof of a previous license if you wanted to load a retail upgrade version of Windows on to a blank HD of a PC you built from scratch. It's the same with all OEM version of Windows that comes with all hardware companies. The OEM license of Windows you get with a Dell does not entitle you to use it on a Sony or HP. And there's even less of a difference between a Dell and a Sony or HP PC. Than there is between an Intel Mac and a PC.
Yes, you can use an OEM copy of Windows could be used to load an upgrade version. Whether or not that violates licensing is another separate issue (not that MS should care, retail upgrades cost as much as if not more than OEM full versions). Simple fact is that there is no lock tying Windows to particular hardware (other than the obvious meeting of system requirements.).
Again, my question to everyone who uses Windows on their Mac: How would you feel if Microsoft updated their OS to NOT work on Macs? That is no different than how Apple has excluded OS X from running on certain hardware.
No, an OEM version is not locked to a hardware manufacturer. If the system comes with some sort of restore disc, that IS locked to that system configuration because it's a copy of the system state after it rolled off the assembly line. A true Windows OEM disc has no software/hardware locks in it.
Yes, you can use an OEM copy of Windows could be used to load an upgrade version. Whether or not that violates licensing is another separate issue (not that MS should care, retail upgrades cost as much as if not more than OEM full versions). Simple fact is that there is no lock tying Windows to particular hardware (other than the obvious meeting of system requirements.).
I know that a restore disk can re-image the HD back to the way it came from the factory. But the ones I seen can also just re-install Windows. Without altering any other software you have on the HD. And you can actually see it go through the install process of Windows. Not re-image it. But you can not use this disk to install Windows on any other PC. Even if you can supply the drivers needed on the other PC.
I know you can use an upgrade version of Windows to upgrade the OS on the computer the OEM disk or "restore disk came with. But can you use either one of them as proof of a previous version of Windows on a computer that you built from scratch? (Say that your Dell dies.) Will an upgrade version of Windows accept this OEM (or restore) disk when it ask you to put a previous Windows disk in the drive so it can verify you have a previous version? If not, then that OEM disk essentially locked you to the PC it came with. And you can only upgrade the OS on that PC with that license.
And in reality, many PC's now comes with the restore software an HD partition. They no longer supply you with a "disk". So your Windows license is only good for that PC and is not transferable to another PC. If the HD dies, so does your Windows license.
Quote:
Again, my question to everyone who uses Windows on their Mac: How would you feel if Microsoft updated their OS to NOT work on Macs? That is no different than how Apple has excluded OS X from running on certain hardware.
Yes there is a difference. How soon some people forget. MS is a monopoly and must be treated as such. MS would run into problems with the DOJ if it tries to do that. And if they could do it, many PC makers would complain. Because if MS could lock out one vender, then what prevents MS from locking out any of the other venders. This would increase MS monopolistic power greatly.
For a great many computer users, there is no other viable choice except Windows. That is not the case with OSX. You can nearly do everything that you do on a Mac (with OSX), on a PC (with Windows). The reverse is not true, as so many PC people have pointed out, because there are much more software that peole depend on, that can't run on OSX.
But what if there were a half of dozen OS's to choose. With many cross compatible software. And MS wasn't a monopoly it terms of market share. Would there be a problem if MS decided to make their OS available only on Dell hardware? Or if Dell decided to buy out MS and use their OS only on their PC's. I don't think so. Now people that like to use Sony or HP hardware might complain. And other PC makers will complain. But so long as there are other viable OS's to choose from they most like couldn't stop it.
What if Dell contract out MS to write them an optimized version of Windows for Dell brand PC's. Can anyone stop Dell and MS from going through with this? So long as MS maintains a version of Windows for all the other PC makers.
And what if some PC maker wants to make and sell a specialize PC and develops an OS for it. Would that company also have to make their OS available to all PC makers just because they share similar hardware?
Suppose you develop a killer OS for a tablet PC. Can anyone stop you from selling that OS to HP and lock out all other venders if HP paid you enough for the rights to use it?
What if you went out an built a game console using nearly the same components as an Xbox. Would you be able to force MS to give you their Xbox OS so that you can do a little modification and use it on your console? Could you buy old broken down Xboxes for $50.00 and remove the eprom chip that the Xbox OS is on use it in your consoles? And then sell your Xbox game compatible consoles. Because MS owns the rights to their Xbox OS. Buying an Xbox only gets you the license to use their OS on that Xbox.
Comments
If Psystar do win this (which I highly doubt), all Apple has to do is change the chipsets within all forthcoming Macs to a proprietary one that they own and all further versions of OS X will only support that.
Better still for Apple, would to be supply OS X in EPROM inside the system... no disc. updates only online to validated systems, perhaps over iTunes Store. On "install" the OS is installed from the EPROM onto HD as usual, updated supplied as a new EPROM image which gets written into a second bank. Having 2 EPROM banks allows current and previous versions of the OS to reside in the system, allowing for fallback.
Any other non Apple systems running OS X would then most defiantly be illegal as they would have had to steel firmware, which like a copied BIOS would, Im sure, be upheld as piracy.
The group think of the anti-DRM crowd (of which I ascribe) is that DRM and copyright should be mutually exclusive, as there is no means for the DRM to "time out" at copyright expiration. A start-up check would count as DRM. An author/publisher/creator should be entitled to either copyright protection or DRM but not both.
So, by Pystar's logic, they are providing a compatibility layer to allow software to be run on their systems. It is a very weak stretch, but there is a small bit of logic there.
Interesting.
I would argue that no one except Psystar is really trying to conflate or confuse copyright and the EULA for OS-X though. The reason I have a hard time understanding their argument is because they are purposely confusing the two, which (if I understand you right) you agree with also.
They say the start up check is "not really (proper) copyright protection" when from my point of view (and most people's I would argue), it's not intended to be. It's just a check for hardware as part of the EULA and totally expected, mundane, etc. I'm pretty sure that Apple is actually arguing that Psystar violated the copyright by reproducing the software and hacked the copyright protection by hacking the software and associated patches, not by circumventing the start up check.
I think at the end it will turn out that what is behind Psystar is more of an idiot savant than a giant corporation. I do think someone is funding them just to see what happens, but my take on that is that it happened *after* the original loser started the ball rolling sort of speak.
I say this because the arguments they are using are quite brilliant in a way, and denote someone of great intellectual power. But they also contain huge blind spots and great idiocy as well. I think we are dealing with a "genius who never went to school" (much) and is woefully lacking in any kind of common sense. This kind of wild hubris often comes from people who have a giant chip on their shoulder from being much smarter than the average bear, but who still fail miserably due to no education or some kind of other social difficulties like extreme poverty.
Maybe some Eastern European guy who grew up in a social mess and taught himself everything he knows about computers kind of guy???
This kind of wild hubris often comes from people who have a giant chip on their shoulder from being much smarter than the average bear, but who still fail miserably due to no education or some kind of other social difficulties like extreme poverty.
To quote Julius Caesar from the BBC/HBO TV series Rome...
"It's only hubris if I fail"
and we all know what happened to Caesar later.
"Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and is derived from the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD).[7] Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in Nextstep, the core of Mac OS X."
Could be that Apple missed a few bits and pieces, why would Psystar flush cash on a pointless defence ?
Apple are saying that Psystar is creating software that breaks their copyright protection, Psystar are saying that a start up check does not qualify as copyright protection. A hardware check has nothing to do with an EULA, an EULA is a contract between the user of the software and Apple.
You are missing the point. A start-up check is what virtually every piece of well-written software does to ensure that the software will run effectively. If the law came down on Apple and said you could no longer write software to check for valid hardware, can you imagine the precedent? Writing software that check that the DRM hardware is there would now be illegal? Fat chance!
The API framework, development framework, and graphic user interface are Apple's proprietary property.
You are missing the point, Apple does not own all the code in mac OS "Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and is derived from the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD).[7] Certain parts from FreeBSD's and NetBSD's implementation of Unix were incorporated in Nextstep, the core of Mac OS X."
Your logic seems to be fighting against itself to justify that Apple only sells OS upgrades.
You basically seem to be agreeing that every Apple computer comes with an implicit license for OS X (it's the only way you can justify that installing the OS on the repaired system is still an upgrade). Just to keep it simple, let's say that he only repairs computers that would have come with 10.5. If every Mac comes with an implicit OS license, why then would you have an issue with him burning a copy of OS X for each computer since they already have a license for that software? If you have a license, it shouldn't be able to be considered theft at that point.
Your logic is flawed. Just because you repair Macs for a living doesn't entitle you to buy one retail copy of OSX and install it on multiple Macs. You would have to give up an ORIGINAL copy with the Mac you installed it on when you re-sell the Mac. You just have to add the cost of the OSX upgrade when re-selling that Mac.
What you're saying is that I can go out and buy one copy of OSX and pass it around to all my friends (with Macs) and let them upgrade their Macs with my copy. Just because they have a OSX license with their Mac doesn't mean that they are entitile to a free upgrade with my copy. Each Mac requires a separate license for upgrading. Each retail copy of OSX is exactly ONE license. (Except the family pack.) It doeasn't matter if you're an individual with one Mac or a business with many Macs.
Apple does sell the OS separate from the hardware. The boxed version of OS X is NOT an upgrade version; it is a full version of the software. No where on Apple's site is a previous version of OS X stated as being required.
Up until OSX.5 the retail box stated that a previous version of OSX is required. I have a retail copy of OSX.3 and it will not install unless it detects a previous version of OSX on any of my HD. It's stated right on the box that I must have OSX.2 or below. But it does not need any of the software code from the previous OSX to install. It's only checking for a previous license. OSX.5 does this (license check) with a hardware check.
With a Windows upgrade copy, it just ask you to insert a copy of a previous version of Windows into your CD/DVD drive to verify a previous license. (That's if it doesn't see a previous version on the HD.) It too is an upgrade and states it right on the box. But it also installs the full version. Without having any of the previuos OS on the HD. To be considered an upgrade, it's the previous license that matters. Not the actual software codes from a previuos version. It's the same with Adobe Photoshop. An upgrade copy of Photoshop will install the full version once you prove you have a previous license.
I guess I'm just missing the fundamental difference. In your example of Microsoft fixing XP/Vista to only work on Dell computers, how is that different than what Apple has done. Except they've made it even more of a "sweetheart deal" as you called it by making the hardware themselves instead of contracting with a 3rd party (which would cut into profits).
What would your reaction be if the next Windows security update brought along a bit of code that checked for the chip(s) that Apple uses to lock OS X to their hardware? If the chip was found, Windows would immediately crash to the "blue screen of death." I know there are many people on here who use Windows either through Bootcamp or a virtual machine. How many of them would suddenly cry foul of such an action, despite the fact that there is NO DIFFERENCE between that and what Apple has done.
Isn't it just a handful of system-critical files that Apple has locked to the hardware? Wouldn't the vast majority of OS X function just fine with no software modifications? So where is the difference. All Apple has done is taken a fully functional OS and sewn a couple of pieces to their hardware in an effort to destroy compatibility with other computers.
I wouldn't be surprised if the OS X hackers who Apple has chosen to generally ignore didn't get dragged in as part of Psystar's defense/attack.
But in a way MS do lock their OS to a specific companies hardware. That OEM disk you get with a Dell only works on a Dell and only on that model of Dell, for that year. I'm not even sure if you can use that OEM Windows disk as proof of a previous license if you wanted to load a retail upgrade version of Windows on to a blank HD of a PC you built from scratch. It's the same with all OEM version of Windows that comes with all hardware companies. The OEM license of Windows you get with a Dell does not entitle you to use it on a Sony or HP. And there's even less of a difference between a Dell and a Sony or HP PC. Than there is between an Intel Mac and a PC.
So a PC hardware company can lock the MS Windows OS you get from them to their own hardware. And MS can license a version of their OS that will only work on a certain company's hardware. Why can't Apple do the same? Apple makes both hardware and software.
The group think of the anti-DRM crowd (of which I ascribe) is that DRM and copyright should be mutually exclusive, as there is no means for the DRM to "time out" at copyright expiration. A start-up check would count as DRM. An author/publisher/creator should be entitled to either copyright protection or DRM but not both.
So, by Pystar's logic, they are providing a compatibility layer to allow software to be run on their systems. It is a very weak stretch, but there is a small bit of logic there.
Why would the DRM need to "time out" at the expiration of the copyrighted work? The original copyright owner is not obligated to provide, for free, their once copyrighted work to everyone that wants it. Once the copyright expires, it's public domain and you are free to break that DRM without any legal repercussion. The original copyright owner don't have to supply you with any help to unlock the DRM or a DRM free copy of it.
Up until OSX.5 the retail box stated that a previous version of OSX is required. I have a retail copy of OSX.3 and it will not install unless it detects a previous version of OSX on any of my HD. It's stated right on the box that I must have OSX.2 or below. But it does not need any of the software code from the previous OSX to install. It's only checking for a previous license. OSX.5 does this (license check) with a hardware check.
The 10.5 DVD installer does not do a check for previous OS installs. I have installed the retail version on a new from the factory HD upgrade in a MBP.
I have done fresh installs on MBP & iMac upgrade drives several times over the last several years and never been denied by there not being anything on the HD.
The requirement is for legal purposes, not literal you cannot use the disk because it physically will refuse to work.
The 10.5 DVD installer does not do a check for previous OS installs. I have installed the retail version on a new from the factory HD upgrade in a MBP.
I have done fresh installs on MBP & iMac upgrade drives several times over the last several years and never been denied by there not being anything on the HD.
The requirement is for legal purposes, not literal you cannot use the disk because it physically will refuse to work.
You are verifying what I stated. I stated "up until OSX.5". Which means OSX.4 and below. Even OSX.0 and OSX.1 required that you have OS9 on the HD before it installed. OSX.5 is the first version of OSX that don't require a previous version of an OS software on the HD. It verifies your previuos license by checking that the hardware is that of a Mac.
In fact I don't understand why OSX.0 to OSX.3 even checked for a previous OS on the HD. Since all Macs at the time these OS came out were PPC chips. (G3, G4 and G5) All the upgrade OSX had to do was check for the chip since a Mac is proof of a previous license. This would have save me a lot of work. Since I like to do a clean installs and thus I lose my previous OS version on my HD when I do this. Which means that I must go through the trouble of loading OS9, then OSX.1 and finally OSX.3 or OSX.4 when I have to reformat my drive.
Correction- I did a quick check because I thought OSX.4 came out before the Intel Macs. And it seems that OSX.4.0 was introduce before the Intel Macs and only required that you had a G3,G4 or G5 chip at the time. No previous version of OSX required. When the Intel Macs came out the requirement for OSX.4.4 change to OSX.3.9 or earlier. Obviously, when Apple introduced the Intel Macs, they couldn't put G3,G4, G5 or Intel chip as a requirement. As this would also include a PC. When OSX.5 came out it simply stated a Mac instead of naming the chip.
Psystar are idiots, Mac OS X has a copyright. The copyright number is \tTX0006849489 submitted in 2007.
Look it up on the following site
http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwe...&CNT=25&HIST=1
I wish that all the media, including this one, would do their home work prior to posting something like this. It took me 2 minutes to find out. Why are people who are reporting this crap wouldn't do the research first?
thats the same one (for disc & print) mentioned in the above article. maybe you should have clicked on the link first.
this one, on the other hand, mentions "computer program": TX0005401457
Who says the word 'upgrade' needs to appear? The EULA very specifically states that it can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware. Since all Apple-branded hardware comes with OS X pre-installed, that makes it an upgrade version - even if they don't specifically call it that.
Nobody says the word "upgrade" must appear, but if it's not there, it's reasonable for a consumer to assume it's a full version. That's a given in the computer world. Apple knows that. They have never referred to OS X as an upgrade. They're revising history to suit their needs. And if it's suddenly an "upgrade" why didn't Apple offer lower prices to those of us who already owned an earlier version of the software?
See, none of it fits the definition of an upgrade. Why defend what is clearly a lie on the part of Apple?
Oh, and not all Macs came with OS X preinstalled. If I buy a used Mac originally sold with OS 9 but able to run OS X, does that mean I cannot buy and install OS X? Is that an acceptable upgrade path according to Apple? I'm not sure. I can't find any reference to OS X being an upgrade on their site so I have no way to confirm.
Let us be honest: Apple doesn't care so much about statutory damages or attorney fees because Psystar likely can't afford either. It will go Bankrupt if Apple wins and Apple won't get a dime. Apple knows this. Apple merely wants an injunction.
Copyright registration is required "before the owner can peruse a case in court."
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_registration
Nobody says the word "upgrade" must appear, but if it's not there, it's reasonable for a consumer to assume it's a full version. That's a given in the computer world. Apple knows that. They have never referred to OS X as an upgrade. They're revising history to suit their needs. And if it's suddenly an "upgrade" why didn't Apple offer lower prices to those of us who already owned an earlier version of the software?
See, none of it fits the definition of an upgrade. Why defend what is clearly a lie on the part of Apple?
In the history of the computer world, an "upgrade" version of a software is the "full" version at a discount price because you paid for a "full" version sometime in the past. It has nothing to do with "updating" an older version of that software. Therefore, a previous version is not required for the "upgrade" software to work. A previous version is only required to verify that you own a previous version before it will install a newer "full" version. Sometimes all you need is the install disk or serial number of the previous version. A previous version is what's require before you are entitle to the discount of the "upgrade" version.
Now some software companies only allow you to "upgrade" 2 or 3 times before you have to buy another "full" version. And some software companies charge for "upgrades" on a sliding scale. The older the version you're trying to "update", the less the discount to "upgrade" to the newest version.
You are thinking that an "upgrade" version only contains the necessary codes to bring an older version up to date. And this is why it's cheaper than the "full" version. Which contains all the codes to install the newer version.
OSX retail didn't suddenly become an "upgrade". It has always been an "upgrade" and the price has always reflected that. There is no need for a "full" version since OSX is only meant to run on a Mac. And All Mac came with a previous version of an OS. If you lost the disk that came with your Mac or got a Mac off eBay without any software, then you have to buy another license to get an OS back in your computer. But you are entitle to the "upgrade" price because owning a Mac implies that you have a previous license. Even if the OS is not there or no longer working. If you damage your original disk, you can probably mail it back to Apple and they will replace it with a minimum charge.
Oh, and not all Macs came with OS X preinstalled. If I buy a used Mac originally sold with OS 9 but able to run OS X, does that mean I cannot buy and install OS X? Is that an acceptable upgrade path according to Apple? I'm not sure. I can't find any reference to OS X being an upgrade on their site so I have no way to confirm.
I don't think OSX.0 (Cheetah) was ever available in retail. It only came with a Mac (along with OS9) or was available as a free beta download.
OSX.1 (Puma) requires OS9 installed on the HD of a qualifying Mac.
OSX.2 (Jaguar) required OSX.0, OSX.1 or (I believe) OS9 on the HD.
OSX.3 (Panther) (and I believe OSX.4.4 (Tiger) (Intel version)) requires any previous version of OSX on the HD. Having just OS9 do not meet the requirements.
OSX.4.0 (Tiger) (PPC version) and OSX.5 (Leopard) only requires that it's a Mac. But I don't think OSX.5 support the G3 chip. But it will load on to older G4 and G5 Macs.
So to answer your question. If you still have OS9 installed, you can install OSX.1 and I think OSX.2. And from there, all newer OSX. (Providing it supports the older PPC chip.)
If it's a blank drive, then you can install OSX.4.0 and OSX.5.(Providing it supports the older PPC chip.) And OSX.0, if you can find a copy of it.
Correction- After researching the cat names for he various OSX I realize that OSX.0 (Cheetah) was available in retail. I remember all the PR for Cheetah. For some reason I thought Puma (OSX.1) was OSX.0. As I don't remember any PR relating to Puma.
1. The OS install disks that come with the machines include a hardware check as a part of the OS installer. They will ONLY work on the same model of computer as the one they were shipped with. If you try to run the installer on a computer that is not the same model, you will get an error message like "Mac OS X cannot be installed on this computer".
2. Not only do the in-box disks check for hardware, but the retail copies only contain drivers for models authorized to run OS X. For example, the build number of OS X pre-10.5.6 for the Aluminum macbooks, was different from the build number of the white-plastic ones. Why? There were several hardware changes, and the drivers and other software necessary to run them had to be added into it.
3. To get an installation of the OS to work on a non-apple system (it's well documented on the OSx86 site and beyond my abilities to interpret properly) is something that HAS to be hacked together. EFI emulation and all that not-withstanding, you would have to repackage the disk to make something that is a valid restore.
Now, as far as the retail disks go there is one other point I'd like to make. They sell for $129.00. Apple can easily (and quite correctly) equate this to an upgrade price copy of their main competitor in the industry. They could argue that this is not only obviously an upgrade copy by virtue of the EULA and system requirements (http://support.apple.com/kb/TA24950?viewlocale=en_US), but also by common pricing comparisons between comparable products.
As far as the copyright of Mac OS X is concerned. I have no clue why everyone is stuck on 2007 and the term CD. CD and DVD are not distinct and separate media types in the world of actual bytes, and no audio/video. Not only that, but the drives are actually the same damn drive (and have been for quite some time). LOL. To those stuck on the copyright that was issues in 2007 for OS X..the term Mac OS X itself, has been copyrighted and trademarked since at least 2001. The 2007 registration appears to be just an update. Psystar isn't accused of necessarily violating strictly the updates for that particular application. They are accused of using the terms "Mac" "Mac OS X" etc. Terms that have been legally apple's for many years already.
But in a way MS do lock their OS to a specific companies hardware. That OEM disk you get with a Dell only works on a Dell and only on that model of Dell, for that year.
No, an OEM version is not locked to a hardware manufacturer. If the system comes with some sort of restore disc, that IS locked to that system configuration because it's a copy of the system state after it rolled off the assembly line. A true Windows OEM disc has no software/hardware locks in it.
I'm not even sure if you can use that OEM Windows disk as proof of a previous license if you wanted to load a retail upgrade version of Windows on to a blank HD of a PC you built from scratch. It's the same with all OEM version of Windows that comes with all hardware companies. The OEM license of Windows you get with a Dell does not entitle you to use it on a Sony or HP. And there's even less of a difference between a Dell and a Sony or HP PC. Than there is between an Intel Mac and a PC.
Yes, you can use an OEM copy of Windows could be used to load an upgrade version. Whether or not that violates licensing is another separate issue (not that MS should care, retail upgrades cost as much as if not more than OEM full versions). Simple fact is that there is no lock tying Windows to particular hardware (other than the obvious meeting of system requirements.).
Again, my question to everyone who uses Windows on their Mac: How would you feel if Microsoft updated their OS to NOT work on Macs? That is no different than how Apple has excluded OS X from running on certain hardware.
No, an OEM version is not locked to a hardware manufacturer. If the system comes with some sort of restore disc, that IS locked to that system configuration because it's a copy of the system state after it rolled off the assembly line. A true Windows OEM disc has no software/hardware locks in it.
Yes, you can use an OEM copy of Windows could be used to load an upgrade version. Whether or not that violates licensing is another separate issue (not that MS should care, retail upgrades cost as much as if not more than OEM full versions). Simple fact is that there is no lock tying Windows to particular hardware (other than the obvious meeting of system requirements.).
I know that a restore disk can re-image the HD back to the way it came from the factory. But the ones I seen can also just re-install Windows. Without altering any other software you have on the HD. And you can actually see it go through the install process of Windows. Not re-image it. But you can not use this disk to install Windows on any other PC. Even if you can supply the drivers needed on the other PC.
I know you can use an upgrade version of Windows to upgrade the OS on the computer the OEM disk or "restore disk came with. But can you use either one of them as proof of a previous version of Windows on a computer that you built from scratch? (Say that your Dell dies.) Will an upgrade version of Windows accept this OEM (or restore) disk when it ask you to put a previous Windows disk in the drive so it can verify you have a previous version? If not, then that OEM disk essentially locked you to the PC it came with. And you can only upgrade the OS on that PC with that license.
And in reality, many PC's now comes with the restore software an HD partition. They no longer supply you with a "disk". So your Windows license is only good for that PC and is not transferable to another PC. If the HD dies, so does your Windows license.
Again, my question to everyone who uses Windows on their Mac: How would you feel if Microsoft updated their OS to NOT work on Macs? That is no different than how Apple has excluded OS X from running on certain hardware.
Yes there is a difference. How soon some people forget. MS is a monopoly and must be treated as such. MS would run into problems with the DOJ if it tries to do that. And if they could do it, many PC makers would complain. Because if MS could lock out one vender, then what prevents MS from locking out any of the other venders. This would increase MS monopolistic power greatly.
For a great many computer users, there is no other viable choice except Windows. That is not the case with OSX. You can nearly do everything that you do on a Mac (with OSX), on a PC (with Windows). The reverse is not true, as so many PC people have pointed out, because there are much more software that peole depend on, that can't run on OSX.
But what if there were a half of dozen OS's to choose. With many cross compatible software. And MS wasn't a monopoly it terms of market share. Would there be a problem if MS decided to make their OS available only on Dell hardware? Or if Dell decided to buy out MS and use their OS only on their PC's. I don't think so. Now people that like to use Sony or HP hardware might complain. And other PC makers will complain. But so long as there are other viable OS's to choose from they most like couldn't stop it.
What if Dell contract out MS to write them an optimized version of Windows for Dell brand PC's. Can anyone stop Dell and MS from going through with this?
And what if some PC maker wants to make and sell a specialize PC and develops an OS for it. Would that company also have to make their OS available to all PC makers just because they share similar hardware?
Suppose you develop a killer OS for a tablet PC. Can anyone stop you from selling that OS to HP and lock out all other venders if HP paid you enough for the rights to use it?
What if you went out an built a game console using nearly the same components as an Xbox. Would you be able to force MS to give you their Xbox OS so that you can do a little modification and use it on your console?