Psystar says its Mac OS X copies are legal by nature

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    Well it hurts Apple, because Apple sells computers, not a stand-alone operating system. The retail box is basically just an upgrade for Macs that didn't ship with the new version. At only $129, Apple could easily prove that they do in fact consider it to be nothing more than an upgrade for existing Macs; all they'd have to do is compare it to the cost of a full retail version of Windows Vista Ultimate.



    Why Vista Ultimate? Why not Red Hat or Ubuntu or some other random free OS? Or how about XP OEM, for system builders? Or Home Premium? Ultimate only because it favors Apple the most? There are plenty of OS's out there based on similar code to OS X that Windows prices need not be considered. Apple has a fancy GUI for a basically open source back end. Why would that need be compared with the most over-priced bloatware on the market?
  • Reply 22 of 85
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    It's like Apple is the bartender dealing with a belligerent drunk.



    Or like dealing with the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

    (after all his limbs have been chopped off)
  • Reply 23 of 85
    davidwdavidw Posts: 977member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by focher View Post


    You must remember that Apple will have to demonstrate exactly how it is being harmed. They are realizing the sale of the software, so their only harm is that they don't get a hardware sale out of it - but they don't necessarily get that anyway if someone buys it and installs on an existing Mac.



    Apple doesn't need to demostrate hows it's being harm. Apple only needs to show that they own the copyright to OSX and that Psystar is using their IP in such a way that it wasn't intended to be used. And it's clearly stated on the box on how it's to be used. That's it. They can stop Psystar from loading off the shelf OSX into their hardware based on this. Every copyright owner has control of how their IP can to be used. Apple only needs to show monetary harm if they were to sue for damages. As far as I know, Apple is only suing to stop Psystar from using OSX on their unauthorized hardware.



    As far as I know, Dell can come along and pay Apple 1000 dollars per copy of OSX that they loaded on to Dell PC's. Apple don't have to accept it. Apple can force Dell to stop. Even though Apple can't prove that it's being harmed. OSX is Apple IP and they can dictate who gets to use it and how it's used.



    And it doesn't matter that Apple doesn't realize any new hardware sale when a Mac user buys an off the shelf copy of OSX to update his Mac. A Mac user is entitle to the discounted upgrade cost of OSX because his original Mac purchase subsidized the developement of OSX. The discounted cost of an off the shelf copy of OSX is to cover the cost of upgrading an existing OSX license. Not a new OSX license. Which is what Psystar needs to purchase for their hardware. An off the shelf copy of OSX IS NOT a new license for OSX.
  • Reply 24 of 85
    Quote:

    Psystar still maintains that Apple's code within Mac OS X to verify the presence of Apple hardware, which forces a kernel panic or infinite loop if the test fails, "does not constitute a technological copyright protection measure" or "effectively control access to a copyrighted work." Apple has accused Psystar of patching a part of the Mac OS X code to enable it to run on third-party hardware.



    Ugh, how long is it going to take before they get the facts right?



    The kernel panic is because the bios doesn't provide certain structures to the kernel at boot time, i believe it has to do with the device tree, on a real mac the firmware does hardware discovery and not the kernel, when that info isn't provided to the kernel, it panics, and probably reboots endlessly on most machines. This is just how it works, not malicious attempts to screw cloners.



    And there is in fact a technological protection method they had to break, protected binaries. Since the court has already said Apple has the right to tie the software to their hardware, i don't think they will be willing to exempt circumvention of these protected binaries as interoperability. These binaries DO effectively control access to a protected work, though they could claim the key has been freely given out to every mac owner (its in the SMC chip)
  • Reply 25 of 85
    crees!crees! Posts: 501member
    When I hear the word usurp I think Obama, not Apple.
  • Reply 26 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by focher View Post


    By many of the definitions people create for themselves here regarding the First Sale doctrine, third party software that modifies the OS would be considered a violation of Apple's copyright. That's ridiculous.



    The main issue that Apple has is that the code modifications are only for allowing for interoperability. There are such interoperability exceptions to the DMCA.



    You must remember that Apple will have to demonstrate exactly how it is being harmed. They are realizing the sale of the software, so their only harm is that they don't get a hardware sale out of it - but they don't necessarily get that anyway if someone buys it and installs on an existing Mac.



    Anyone who argues that this case is cut-and-dry one way or another should be ignored. This is a very gray area of the law, especially in regards to copyrights. Psystar is not outside the realm of reason in their defense argument.





    This case is absolutely cut-and-dry. If one person purchases a Psystar system (such as myself) with OSX and has a terrible experience and the end result is a person who thinks that OSX is trash, Psystar has accomplished nothing more than destroying the Apple experience. If Apple can prove that Psystar has undervalued the Apple brand name (easily done with people like me), Psystar will not only shut down, but also they (or their legal investors) will pay BIG damages.

    The end of the road is near.
  • Reply 27 of 85
    It's the closest feature-match mainstream OS for the client version of OSX. Home Premium leaves out encryption and remote desktop. Ubuntu is wonderful, and a great value, and I use it, but it's no OSX.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by technohermit View Post


    Why Vista Ultimate? Why not Red Hat or Ubuntu or some other random free OS? Or how about XP OEM, for system builders? Or Home Premium? Ultimate only because it favors Apple the most? There are plenty of OS's out there based on similar code to OS X that Windows prices need not be considered. Apple has a fancy GUI for a basically open source back end. Why would that need be compared with the most over-priced bloatware on the market?



  • Reply 28 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Or like dealing with the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

    (after all his limbs have been chopped off)



    Another good analogy.
  • Reply 29 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by technohermit View Post


    Perhaps the pro-Apple stance on this issue is because last time they let the incompetent build cheap sh*t and load OS on it, Apple almost went under.



    Actually the last time there were clones it showed Apple to be incompetent, slow, unable to compete, and that they were building expensive sh*t. The clones kept trumping Apple on each release and, in the case of Power Computing, built an innovative Internet shop to market them, which became the origins of the Apple Store after Apple bought them out.



    But still, big powerful Psystar should stop picking on little ol' Apple because some Apple users are becoming extremely disturbed at the prospect of not being told what they should buy and use.
  • Reply 30 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    That hardware sale subsidizes the development of future OS updates and upgrades.



    Prove that.



    This thread is totally full of the most ludicrous suppositions and wishful thinking! But then I guess that is par for the course.
  • Reply 31 of 85
    Quote:

    Florida-based Psystar makes its argument in a 17-page response to Apple filed in a San Francisco court last week,*again accusing*Apple of violating copyright law by requiring Mac OS X run only on Apple hardware. *This is Psystar's second line of defense after its claims regarding*anti-trust violations*were thrown out of court for reportedly being self-defeating.



    Instead, Psystar now claims it buys legitimate copies of the Mac OS from retailers and even directly from Apple itself, and under the*doctrine of first sale*doesn't need Apple's permission to resell them. By taking action against Psystar, Apple is effectively trying to override accepted sales practices.



    "Apple attempts to usurp [the Copyright Act] by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple--and Apple alone--will say whether, how or by whom its software is...distributed or used," Psystar's attorneys write





    The owner of any good may decide how he will use his own property. By granting a license to use Mac OS X, Apple is trying to dictate how the owner of a license will use Mac OS X, to restrict the rights of fair use defined by laws.



    Apple is trying to restrict the use of a Mac OS X licence beyond the time of sale when property is transferred from Apple to the buyer. This attempt is clearly abusive and ought to be barred by the Courts.



  • Reply 32 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post


    Prove that.



    This thread is totally full of the most ludicrous suppositions and wishful thinking! But then I guess that is par for the course.



    Prove it?



    I guess they subsidize future OS updates by letting people steal and hack their products.
  • Reply 33 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gastroboy View Post


    Prove that.



    This thread is totally full of the most ludicrous suppositions and wishful thinking! But then I guess that is par for the course.



    I doubt anyone here would be able to prove that, but it is both plausible and probable. DO you know of any company that makes a profit by selling a commercial OS that has less than 10% market share at $129? Probably not. The cheapest commercial OSes are probably OEM licenses for Windows, which are only cheap because the hardware vendor provides all support and not Microsoft. Now, someone brought up Linux earlier, and while some distributions are pretty nice (I personally like openSUSE), most of the software that makes up those Linux distributions is developed largely by volunteer programmers in their spare time. If the majority of the developers were actually paid to write that software, Linux as we know it would not be available for free.
  • Reply 34 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by technohermit View Post


    Aren't they buying the OS one copy per machine? I didn't think they bought one DVD off the shelf and started mass producing copies for their machines from it. That would be dumb, and illegal on many levels without question.



    I didn't mean to sound like I thought they bought one copy and installed it on multiple systems. I meant that they are buying one copy per machine, but altering the code and selling the altered code for profit. I say for profit because they aren't selling altered OSX as a standalone, but using it to entice customers to buy their hardware. Without OSX, who would buy their hardware, who would even notice them?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by technohermit View Post


    I think, in the same vain that Apple likes to make money off of hardware, this company (and many others I'm sure) wants to make money off of hardware without getting involved in operating systems of their own, as well. I just wish it went the other way, where Apple says "...sure, no problem, pay us $399 per seat and you can have it. Without our support for driver issues, of course "



    Psystar could just as easily buy a license to sell Vista on their machines legally. Perhaps not just as easily as Psystar pretty much went behind Apple's back and altered software that didn't belong to them, repackaged it, and sold it. I just thought of another analogy, kinda rocky, but it's kind of like scalping tickets... If you look at it from the perspective of them standing in front of the Apple Store saying, "Apple's iMac starts at $1200, but I'll sell you this tower that runs OSX starting at $550." That's a possible hardware sale taken from Apple. It's sort of a moot point though, as I'm pretty sure 99.9% of people buying those Open Computers know what they are getting into.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by technohermit View Post


    That aside, I am for copyright changes in this country. Especially music and movies. I don't see the problem with a 40-50 year copyright on these things. That should pretty much cover the artist who created it. Also, the DMCA has tread all over fair use without limit. And the companies/artists have the potential right now to lock people up and destroy their lives for stealing a CD. Theft it may be when you download a movie, but copyright infringement likely not. If you walk into a store and steal a DVD, they (any movie studio) hardly have the right to track you down in jail and sue you for $250,000.



    Sorry for the off-topic, but it bugs me.



    If you walk into a store and steal a DVD, you stole $20 from a store basically. If you use a torrent to download a DVD, you're uploading it back to the community at the same time, which is making illegal copies for distribution. That is more damaging to studios than stealing a disc you'll use for (assumed) private use. But I agree with you, many laws are outdated and need to change. I think they need to tackle a few outside of our copyright system first however. \
  • Reply 35 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


    The owner of any good may decide how he will use his own property. By granting a license to use Mac OS X, Apple is trying to dictate how the owner of a license will use Mac OS X, to restrict the rights of fair use defined by laws.



    Apple is trying to restrict the use of a Mac OS X licence beyond the time of sale when property is transferred from Apple to the buyer. This attempt is clearly abusive and ought to be barred by the Courts.







    The owner of any good is allowed to decide how they will use their own property. When you buy OSX, you are buying the license to use THEIR software. So you can do whatever you'd like with the license, make copies, post it online, etc, as long as it's not damaging to any party (such as altering the license to make Apple look bad). You never own the rights to the software, only Apple does. Just as movie studios own the rights to their movies, you are just licensed a copy for private use and duplicating for archival/back-up purposes only.



    Just like purchasing a license to drive, you aren't allowed to drive however you want, there are rules and stipulations to protect others, yourselves, and the vendor (state government in this case).



    What is fair use? Buying a product from a vendor, repackaging it, and undercutting the price of the original vendor (through Psystar's hardware sales) because you didn't have to pay for the original R&D and support? That's fair use? Really?
  • Reply 36 of 85
    legalities aside...



    When we buy Macs, we hope that everything works as promised... But that doesn't happen always! So, WHY would anyone buy anything from PsyStar and such, and even pay them for Extended Warranty, if:



    PsyStar is in Court against Apple

    It's Future is a Question Mark



    vs. buying THE REAL THING, and have a THE REAL COMPANY behind it?



    How much $$ is PsyStar saving their customers!



    Even if they sold each model for HALF PRICE, it wouldn't be worth it, why?

    Cause I would never deal with a FLY BY NIGHT FOLKS like that!

    Why bother, when there are REAL APPLE STORES where every salesperson is a Mac User, as opposed to some guys that just assemble cheap parts to make a FAKE!



    But, I doubt it's even HALF PRICE, and thus can't be worth all the headaches!



    Going to Apple for help, vs. CHEAP GUYS - is insane!!!



    Isn't all our TIME precious!!!



    I, like others, am also wondering if someone else is not behind PsyStar?



    How do they just appear out of nowhere and start all that, plus have $$ for Legal Wars?



    Why hasn't that been exposed? YET!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    Plus, their hardware is UGLY!
  • Reply 37 of 85
    I truly believe Psystar does diminish Apple's reputation by operating as they are. They bundle PC keyboards for use with OSX, the Win key is used as the Apple key, etc. Time Machine, a major feature of OSX Leopard, isn't supported on Open Computers. Psystar decides what third party software compatibilities their customer support will help you with. Boot Camp isn't supported.



    Not to mention, when you buy from Apple, Apple will help move your files from your old PC or Mac to your new computer. That customer service is not available from Psystar either.



    And I really don't like how their website says "The Open and OpenPro can run Mac OS X Leopard to various degrees of support."
  • Reply 38 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't recall Apple suing because of the original installation, they were suing because they distributed modified update binaries.



    I find it silly that Pystar even was using modified binaries. With all the work we've seen in OSX86 (and by-the-by I think Pystar should give something back to that community if it hasn't already), we can install OS X on regular hardware without modifying any of Apple's code (though some open source stuff needs to be modified in a very small fashion), can even use the retail disk to install, and the Apple Software Update program works too. Check the forums. Better yet, check my grammar. :P



    It does however mean installing your own kexts to fit your hardware. It would be like installing a peripheral that Apple does not already have drivers for.



    (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here)







    I'm bored of this case now... wake me at the finale.
  • Reply 39 of 85
    vandilvandil Posts: 187member
    If Apple would bring back a built-to-order Mac Pro that could be configured with more desktop-oriented hardware (as opposed to $3000 workstation hardware) and sell them for as low as $1500 like they did in the past, there wouldn't be a market for Hackintoshes.
  • Reply 40 of 85
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    At least Apple should license Mac OS X to be used with computers form factors not made by Apple, like mini towers, netbooks and handheld and pocket computers like the amazing OQO:



    OQO model 2+

    http://www.oqo.com



    I would not mind paying even an extra $2,000 (going directly to Apple's bank) just to place Mac OS X on it. Is that enough for you, Apple?
Sign In or Register to comment.