Except that Psystar is turning around and making modifications to that copy of OS X, installing it on PCs (or providing that modified copy with the PC), or otherwise wilfully breaking Apple's copy protection and then running a business behind it.
So you are saying that I, after having legally purchased a retail copy of Mac OS X, must follow exactly what Apple wants, and I am not allowed to make any modifications, even in the privacy of my own home? You are wrong about that.
Quote:
That's a big problem in terms of Inellectual Property law.
No it isn't. It's called the right to private property.
Quote:
Just because you bought a copy of OS X does not give you the right to do whatever the hell you want with it. This isn't about the EULA. It's about IP law.
Yes you can. You simply can not copy the original and distribute copies of it, whether for free or for sale. You are able to transfer ownership of the property however if only one copy is being used.
Quote:
Alot of the Pro-Psystar people here would like to think that Apple has no Intellectual Property rights to their product once the sale is made. Not so, and it's a fallacious argument to make and very counterintuitive to the people who are able to make a living thanks to the existence of Intllectual Property law.
No, you don't even know what intellectual property rights are when it comes to this. You are saying that it is ILLEGAL for a customer of a music CD to import their music into iTunes because it is against the EULA of the CD. Which, of course, is simply not true.
Quote:
Intellectual Property is not the same as physical property. It doesn't matter if Psystar actually purchased copies of OS X.
Yes, it DOES matter if Psystar actually purchased the copies of Mac OS X. If only one copy is in use per computer, then Psystar is not guilty of copyright infringement. In other words, there is no intellectual property rights problem in question. It comes down to EULA, which have been shown to be worth nothing in court.
Apple is a fantastic level and i don't think they have sunk to a new low. It is the sh*t bag company Psystar who are trying to capitalize on something that just shouldn't be done. Is it really worth going through all this trouble Psystar? If you want to use Mac OS then just buy a Mac and support the company. These grease balls need to be stopped.
So, what you are saying is that if I purchase a retail copy of Mac OS X from Apple, bring it home, take the DVD out of the box, and install it on my own computer, which I have purchased legally, then what I have done is illegal, and Apple has every right to come at me with the full force of the law?
Are you serious? Are you so blinded by fanaticism that you do not see the ridiculousness of your claim?
This has already been explained to you.
Intellectual Property law places limits on what you can do with "private property."
Yes, it DOES matter if Psystar actually purchased the copies of Mac OS X. If only one copy is in use per computer, then Psystar is not guilty of copyright infringement. In other words, there is no intellectual property rights problem in question. It comes down to EULA, which have been shown to be worth nothing in court.
You are wrong. It doesn't come down to the EULA, because Psystar is not the End User. How can an entity that is not an End User violate an agreement they are not party to?
And according to others in this thread, EULAs have been tested in court and sometimes they've been upheld. Would be nice to see some links either way.
If you can't see that the transference of copyrighted material to another medium is copying of that material then no one here will even begin to help you understand anything more advanced or nuisanced about the law. You are either very young, have never taken any courses on economics, are from a country that did not have a free market or you are Teckstud. Since you do not wish to understand or answer questions posed to you the only recourse we have is not engage you any more on this topic.
I think the word you are looking for is "installing" a copy of Windows XP onto a computer. No matter what you may think, installing from a disc which you purchased legally at retail is not illegal.
At the factory, Dell installs Windows XP onto the computer and includes the backup with the computer so that you can reinstall it. Dell does not include two different discs with two different CD-keys. It includes the installed version and the disc version of the SAME COPY.
Do you understand the difference between installing something and copying it?
So you are saying that I, after having legally purchased a retail copy of Mac OS X, must follow exactly what Apple wants, and I am not allowed to make any modifications, even in the privacy of my own home? You are wrong about that.
Actually, you're not correct. When you install OSX (or any software) you do so with the agreement that you follow the license terms and conditions.
Can you modify OSX at home and tinker with it? Sure, but, if you start distributing or sharing that with others, then you become a target because that clearly violates the license agreement.
It's like music. No one is going to know that you are re-mixing Britney's newest song in your home on your computer, but, as soon as you put it on the Internet, you've exposed yourself to lawsuits.
In other words, you can violate someone else's Copyright or Intellectual Property rights all you want unless you get caught.
I think the word you are looking for is "installing" a copy of Windows XP onto a computer. No matter what you may think, installing from a disc which you purchased legally at retail is not illegal.
At the factory, Dell installs Windows XP onto the computer and includes the backup with the computer so that you can reinstall it. Dell does not include two different discs with two different CD-keys. It includes the installed version and the disc version of the SAME COPY.
Do you understand the difference between installing something and copying it?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's clear that when Solipsism says "copy" he means it as "duplicate" rather than in reference to licensing, which is how you are using it. Dell gives you two "copies" of the same OS - an original on optical disc and an installed duplicate on the HDD - two copies, one license.
Intellectual Property law places limits on what you can do with "private property."
Intellectual property law is another way of saying COPYRIGHT LAW. Copyright law prevents someone from copying a book word for word in its entirety and giving it to someone else in its entirety.
Intellectual property law does not prevent the owner from ripping pages out of the book for his own enjoyment. It does not prevent the owner from scanning the pages of the book into a computer so that the owner can read them in that format.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's clear that when Solipsism says "copy" he means it as "duplicate" rather than in reference to licensing, which is how you are using it. Dell gives you two "copies" of the same OS - an original on optical disc and an installed duplicate on the HDD - two copies, one license.
He was coming to the conclusion that because there were two "copies" as he calls it, Dell was in a very special relationship with Microsoft to allow that to happen. No special relationship however is necessary to install software from a disc. It may be in two different formats, but it is the same "license" if you want to use that word. I did not want to give him the benefit of his using semantics to prove a point instead of legal reasoning to prove a point.
Either way, his point is moot: the license that Dell has to install a copy of Windows XP onto a machine and include the physical media is the same license that Joe Blow has to install a copy of WIndows XP onto a machine and include the physical media.
Sorry I forgot that Apple is bound by totally different rules to everyone else and here was I thinking I was just pointing out the hypocracy in an earlier posters comments about big bad corporate Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Again, though, we're off topic . . .
Whoever bought up Sony as an example chose a pretty poor one, rootkit anyone?
Do you know that the whole cracking the encryption thing on DVD's came about largely as a result of being unable to play DVD's on PC's especially those running Linux.
Back to the case, Psystar is stupid I always thought that ignorance of the law is no defence, Sorbonnes-Oxley requires that documentation be kept for 7 years.
The judge should set a caveat that if the "missing" documents are ever produced somewhere else eg the IRS, that those involved be imediately jailed for contempt and perjury, this could be done in the form of a "good behaviour bond" or whatever the American equivalent is.
Actually, you're not correct. When you install OSX (or any software) you do so with the agreement that you follow the license terms and conditions.
EULA are hardly upheld in court. If a line of the EULA said "You agree to give Steve Jobs fellatio on a nightly basis if you install this software", do you think that would hold up in court? Of course not.
Quote:
Can you modify OSX at home and tinker with it? Sure, but, if you start distributing or sharing that with others, then you become a target because that clearly violates the license agreement.
If you want to sell your modification but you destroy the original such that only one version of the operating system is in existence, then that is perfectly legal. There is absolutely no legal reason why you can not sell a modification of something as long as copyright was not breached.
Quote:
It's like music. No one is going to know that you are re-mixing Britney's newest song in your home on your computer, but, as soon as you put it on the Internet, you've exposed yourself to lawsuits.
See, you are putting it on the internet such that many others are using the modification from the original purchased version. This violates copyright and is illegal.
Quote:
In other words, you can violate someone else's Copyright or Intellectual Property rights all you want unless you get caught.
Intellectual property law is another way of saying COPYRIGHT LAW. Copyright law prevents someone from copying a book word for word in its entirety and giving it to someone else in its entirety.
Intellectual property law does not prevent the owner from ripping pages out of the book for his own enjoyment. It does not prevent the owner from scanning the pages of the book into a computer so that the owner can read them in that format.
It also governs its unlicensed disribution (of the modified product) at a profit, especially if there is a business behind it.
You missed that part.
You're comparing Psystar to an individual doing something for their own personal use/enjoyment.
Alot of the Pro-Psystar people here would like to think that Apple has no Intellectual Property rights to their product once the sale is made. Not so, and it's a fallacious argument to make and very counterintuitive to the people who are able to make a living thanks to the existence of Intllectual Property law.
Intellectual Property is not the same as physical property. It doesn't matter if Psystar actually purchased copies of OS X.
Just to be clear, there is precedence that a buyer can resell software they bought, but the modification and copying of said software is not allowed if they are going to sell it. The pre-installation, regardless if Psystar is still using a hacked copy of OS X, is a violation of that.
Here is some evidence that they were also using other's people's code without permission to get OS X installed and how it could hurt the tinkering OS X community.
Mac EFI emulator license that Psystar was using and may still be using. This only one piece of this stolen puzzle. Their are plenty of drivers (KEXTs) that they'd have to steal, too.
EFI V1 - V8
Redistribution and use in binary form for direct or indirect commercial purposes, with or without modification, is stricktly forbidden.
Redistributions in binary form for non-commercial purposes must reproduce the above license notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the names of EFI V1-V8 copyright owner nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived direct or indirect from this software
Now it looks like they are using Chameleon. This can do it with the original DVD, but it looks to require additional partitions which then recompiles (ie: hacking it) the OS X code for the final installation. The last time I built an OSx86 machine this method was not available. It looks like no matter how you slice it Psystar is in multiple violations.
He was coming to the conclusion that because there were two "copies" as he calls it, Dell was in a very special relationship with Microsoft to allow that to happen. No special relationship however is necessary to install software from a disc. It may be in two different formats, but it is the same "license" if you want to use that word. I did not want to give him the benefit of his using semantics to prove a point instead of legal reasoning to prove a point.
Either way, his point is moot: the license that Dell has to install a copy of Windows XP onto a machine and include the physical media is the same license that Joe Blow has to install a copy of WIndows XP onto a machine and include the physical media.
No it isn't. OEM licensed copies of Windows are cheaper. Dell buys OEM copies of Windows, and it is only allowed to do so in order to re-sell said copies. If you purchase an OEM copy and use it as an end-user, you are breaking the license agreement.
It's a pretty stupid agreement if you ask me. It just comes down to semantics. Why should the consumer effectively pay Microsoft two different prices for the same thing depending on the channel through which he buys it? (i.e. buy at retail and you pay $199 for Windows, but buy a new computer from Dell and you're effectively paying $99 for Windows.) Of course, if you as an end-user buy an OEM copy and install it on your own machine for your own use, and later get caught you could say that you bought the OEM copy, installed it on the machine, sold the machine to your mother (legitimising the OEM copy) and then she sold it back to you.
EULA are hardly upheld in court. If a line of the EULA said "You agree to give Steve Jobs fellatio on a nightly basis if you install this software", do you think that would hold up in court? Of course not.
Why would an EULA include that or anything similar?
Who the hell says they don't hold up in court?? They certainly do if the victimized party's IP rights have been violated and the EULA conforms to "fair use" standards.
EULAs are subject to limits. EULAs don't usually include grossly exaggerated requirements that have nothing to do with "fair use."
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Just to be clear, there is precedence that a buyer can resell software they bought, but the modification and copying of said software is not allowed if they are going to sell it. The pre-installation, regardless if Psystar is still using a hacked copy of OS X, is a violation of that.
Here is some evidence that they were also using other's people's code without permission to get OS X installed and how it could hurt the tinkering OS X community.
Mac EFI emulator license that Psystar was using and may still be using. This only one piece of this stolen puzzle. Their are plenty of drivers (KEXTs) that they'd have to steal, too.
EFI V1 - V8
Redistribution and use in binary form for direct or indirect commercial purposes, with or without modification, is stricktly forbidden.
Redistributions in binary form for non-commercial purposes must reproduce the above license notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Neither the names of EFI V1-V8 copyright owner nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived direct or indirect from this software
Now it looks like they are using Chameleon. This can do it with the original DVD, but it looks to require additional partitions which then recompiles (ie: hacking it) the OS X code for the final installation. The last time I built an OSx86 machine this method was not available. It looks like no matter how you slice it Psystar is in multiple violations.
He doesn't understand that modifying a product and then turning around and reselling it with a buisness behind it is a problem.
This isn't about some kid playing around with a hackintosh. It''s about someone taking your product, cracking/modifying it, and then reslling it at a profit as part of a business to do the same, without your permission.
If someone has a problem with that, they have a problem with Intellectual Property law at large. Which means thta they have serious issues when it comes to understanding the marketplace and how people with ideas and products are supposed to function in it.
Of course, none of this relates to Psystar as they are not the end user and the duplication and hacking of the IP is not covered by this law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
Why should the consumer effectively pay Microsoft two different prices for the same thing depending on the channel through which he buys it? (i.e. buy at retail and you pay $199 for Windows, but buy a new computer from Dell and you're effectively paying $99 for Windows.)
Dell is buying it at a bulk rate and in bulk packaging which we know lowers the price. It also allows MS to maintain a built in dominance by having major OEMs with Windows pre-installed. They can offer lower rates if they include the Windows sticker on their machines and agree to other terms.
Quote:
Of course, if you as an end-user buy an OEM copy and install it on your own machine for your own use, and later get caught you could say that you bought the OEM copy, installed it on the machine, sold the machine to your mother (legitimising the OEM copy) and then she sold it back to you.
MS' OEM partner licensing strictly forbids them from reselling OEM discs without the accompanying HW, yet I've heard of people being able to do so.
He doesn't understand that modifying a product and then turning around and reselling it with a buisness behind it is a problem.
This isn't about some kid playing around with a hackintosh. It''s about someone taking your product, cracking/modifying it, and then reslling it at a profit as part of a business to do the same, without your permission.
If someone has a problem with that, they have a problem with Intellectual Property law at large. Which means thta they have serious issues when it comes to understanding the marketplace and how people with ideas and products are supposed to function in it.
Apple might have a problem with it, and it looks like it does, but since Psystar's copies of OS X are are all legal, purchased copies of Mac OS X, Apple does not really have a foot to stand on legally other than their EULA.
Buying something, modifying it, and then selling it IS LEGAL as long as copyright was not violated. The only thing it violates is whatever crap Apple has in its EULA.
It is like saying that someone buys a car, modifies its internal computer, and sells it again is committing an illegal act and can be prosecuted by the car manufacturer, which is simply bogus.
This isn't about some kid playing around with a hackintosh. It''s about someone taking your product, cracking/modifying it, and then reslling it at a profit as part of a business to do the same, without your permission.
Case in point, I've built several Hackintoshs using the very handy HCLs, walkthroughs and code supplied through InsanelyMac and other sources. I have no problem with and see nothing illegal about altering IP that you use on a personal level. But what Psystar is doing is illegal on many levels. Worse than that, it's against a free market system and they are doomed even if they could win this case. Still waiting for g3pro to respond to my question on that.
Comments
Except that Psystar is turning around and making modifications to that copy of OS X, installing it on PCs (or providing that modified copy with the PC), or otherwise wilfully breaking Apple's copy protection and then running a business behind it.
So you are saying that I, after having legally purchased a retail copy of Mac OS X, must follow exactly what Apple wants, and I am not allowed to make any modifications, even in the privacy of my own home? You are wrong about that.
That's a big problem in terms of Inellectual Property law.
No it isn't. It's called the right to private property.
Just because you bought a copy of OS X does not give you the right to do whatever the hell you want with it. This isn't about the EULA. It's about IP law.
Yes you can. You simply can not copy the original and distribute copies of it, whether for free or for sale. You are able to transfer ownership of the property however if only one copy is being used.
Alot of the Pro-Psystar people here would like to think that Apple has no Intellectual Property rights to their product once the sale is made. Not so, and it's a fallacious argument to make and very counterintuitive to the people who are able to make a living thanks to the existence of Intllectual Property law.
No, you don't even know what intellectual property rights are when it comes to this. You are saying that it is ILLEGAL for a customer of a music CD to import their music into iTunes because it is against the EULA of the CD. Which, of course, is simply not true.
Intellectual Property is not the same as physical property. It doesn't matter if Psystar actually purchased copies of OS X.
Yes, it DOES matter if Psystar actually purchased the copies of Mac OS X. If only one copy is in use per computer, then Psystar is not guilty of copyright infringement. In other words, there is no intellectual property rights problem in question. It comes down to EULA, which have been shown to be worth nothing in court.
So, what you are saying is that if I purchase a retail copy of Mac OS X from Apple, bring it home, take the DVD out of the box, and install it on my own computer, which I have purchased legally, then what I have done is illegal, and Apple has every right to come at me with the full force of the law?
Are you serious? Are you so blinded by fanaticism that you do not see the ridiculousness of your claim?
This has already been explained to you.
Intellectual Property law places limits on what you can do with "private property."
Yes, it DOES matter if Psystar actually purchased the copies of Mac OS X. If only one copy is in use per computer, then Psystar is not guilty of copyright infringement. In other words, there is no intellectual property rights problem in question. It comes down to EULA, which have been shown to be worth nothing in court.
You are wrong. It doesn't come down to the EULA, because Psystar is not the End User. How can an entity that is not an End User violate an agreement they are not party to?
And according to others in this thread, EULAs have been tested in court and sometimes they've been upheld. Would be nice to see some links either way.
If you can't see that the transference of copyrighted material to another medium is copying of that material then no one here will even begin to help you understand anything more advanced or nuisanced about the law. You are either very young, have never taken any courses on economics, are from a country that did not have a free market or you are Teckstud. Since you do not wish to understand or answer questions posed to you the only recourse we have is not engage you any more on this topic.
I think the word you are looking for is "installing" a copy of Windows XP onto a computer. No matter what you may think, installing from a disc which you purchased legally at retail is not illegal.
At the factory, Dell installs Windows XP onto the computer and includes the backup with the computer so that you can reinstall it. Dell does not include two different discs with two different CD-keys. It includes the installed version and the disc version of the SAME COPY.
Do you understand the difference between installing something and copying it?
So you are saying that I, after having legally purchased a retail copy of Mac OS X, must follow exactly what Apple wants, and I am not allowed to make any modifications, even in the privacy of my own home? You are wrong about that.
Actually, you're not correct. When you install OSX (or any software) you do so with the agreement that you follow the license terms and conditions.
Can you modify OSX at home and tinker with it? Sure, but, if you start distributing or sharing that with others, then you become a target because that clearly violates the license agreement.
It's like music. No one is going to know that you are re-mixing Britney's newest song in your home on your computer, but, as soon as you put it on the Internet, you've exposed yourself to lawsuits.
In other words, you can violate someone else's Copyright or Intellectual Property rights all you want unless you get caught.
I think the word you are looking for is "installing" a copy of Windows XP onto a computer. No matter what you may think, installing from a disc which you purchased legally at retail is not illegal.
At the factory, Dell installs Windows XP onto the computer and includes the backup with the computer so that you can reinstall it. Dell does not include two different discs with two different CD-keys. It includes the installed version and the disc version of the SAME COPY.
Do you understand the difference between installing something and copying it?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's clear that when Solipsism says "copy" he means it as "duplicate" rather than in reference to licensing, which is how you are using it. Dell gives you two "copies" of the same OS - an original on optical disc and an installed duplicate on the HDD - two copies, one license.
Intellectual Property law places limits on what you can do with "private property."
Intellectual property law is another way of saying COPYRIGHT LAW. Copyright law prevents someone from copying a book word for word in its entirety and giving it to someone else in its entirety.
Intellectual property law does not prevent the owner from ripping pages out of the book for his own enjoyment. It does not prevent the owner from scanning the pages of the book into a computer so that the owner can read them in that format.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's clear that when Solipsism says "copy" he means it as "duplicate" rather than in reference to licensing, which is how you are using it. Dell gives you two "copies" of the same OS - an original on optical disc and an installed duplicate on the HDD - two copies, one license.
He was coming to the conclusion that because there were two "copies" as he calls it, Dell was in a very special relationship with Microsoft to allow that to happen. No special relationship however is necessary to install software from a disc. It may be in two different formats, but it is the same "license" if you want to use that word. I did not want to give him the benefit of his using semantics to prove a point instead of legal reasoning to prove a point.
Either way, his point is moot: the license that Dell has to install a copy of Windows XP onto a machine and include the physical media is the same license that Joe Blow has to install a copy of WIndows XP onto a machine and include the physical media.
Again, though, we're off topic . . .
Whoever bought up Sony as an example chose a pretty poor one, rootkit anyone?
Do you know that the whole cracking the encryption thing on DVD's came about largely as a result of being unable to play DVD's on PC's especially those running Linux.
Back to the case, Psystar is stupid I always thought that ignorance of the law is no defence, Sorbonnes-Oxley requires that documentation be kept for 7 years.
The judge should set a caveat that if the "missing" documents are ever produced somewhere else eg the IRS, that those involved be imediately jailed for contempt and perjury, this could be done in the form of a "good behaviour bond" or whatever the American equivalent is.
Actually, you're not correct. When you install OSX (or any software) you do so with the agreement that you follow the license terms and conditions.
EULA are hardly upheld in court. If a line of the EULA said "You agree to give Steve Jobs fellatio on a nightly basis if you install this software", do you think that would hold up in court? Of course not.
Can you modify OSX at home and tinker with it? Sure, but, if you start distributing or sharing that with others, then you become a target because that clearly violates the license agreement.
If you want to sell your modification but you destroy the original such that only one version of the operating system is in existence, then that is perfectly legal. There is absolutely no legal reason why you can not sell a modification of something as long as copyright was not breached.
It's like music. No one is going to know that you are re-mixing Britney's newest song in your home on your computer, but, as soon as you put it on the Internet, you've exposed yourself to lawsuits.
See, you are putting it on the internet such that many others are using the modification from the original purchased version. This violates copyright and is illegal.
In other words, you can violate someone else's Copyright or Intellectual Property rights all you want unless you get caught.
Non sequitur.
Intellectual property law is another way of saying COPYRIGHT LAW. Copyright law prevents someone from copying a book word for word in its entirety and giving it to someone else in its entirety.
Intellectual property law does not prevent the owner from ripping pages out of the book for his own enjoyment. It does not prevent the owner from scanning the pages of the book into a computer so that the owner can read them in that format.
It also governs its unlicensed disribution (of the modified product) at a profit, especially if there is a business behind it.
You missed that part.
You're comparing Psystar to an individual doing something for their own personal use/enjoyment.
Not the same thing at all.
Alot of the Pro-Psystar people here would like to think that Apple has no Intellectual Property rights to their product once the sale is made. Not so, and it's a fallacious argument to make and very counterintuitive to the people who are able to make a living thanks to the existence of Intllectual Property law.
Intellectual Property is not the same as physical property. It doesn't matter if Psystar actually purchased copies of OS X.
Just to be clear, there is precedence that a buyer can resell software they bought, but the modification and copying of said software is not allowed if they are going to sell it. The pre-installation, regardless if Psystar is still using a hacked copy of OS X, is a violation of that.
Here is some evidence that they were also using other's people's code without permission to get OS X installed and how it could hurt the tinkering OS X community.Mac EFI emulator license that Psystar was using and may still be using. This only one piece of this stolen puzzle. Their are plenty of drivers (KEXTs) that they'd have to steal, too.Now it looks like they are using Chameleon. This can do it with the original DVD, but it looks to require additional partitions which then recompiles (ie: hacking it) the OS X code for the final installation. The last time I built an OSx86 machine this method was not available. It looks like no matter how you slice it Psystar is in multiple violations.
He was coming to the conclusion that because there were two "copies" as he calls it, Dell was in a very special relationship with Microsoft to allow that to happen. No special relationship however is necessary to install software from a disc. It may be in two different formats, but it is the same "license" if you want to use that word. I did not want to give him the benefit of his using semantics to prove a point instead of legal reasoning to prove a point.
Either way, his point is moot: the license that Dell has to install a copy of Windows XP onto a machine and include the physical media is the same license that Joe Blow has to install a copy of WIndows XP onto a machine and include the physical media.
No it isn't. OEM licensed copies of Windows are cheaper. Dell buys OEM copies of Windows, and it is only allowed to do so in order to re-sell said copies. If you purchase an OEM copy and use it as an end-user, you are breaking the license agreement.
It's a pretty stupid agreement if you ask me. It just comes down to semantics. Why should the consumer effectively pay Microsoft two different prices for the same thing depending on the channel through which he buys it? (i.e. buy at retail and you pay $199 for Windows, but buy a new computer from Dell and you're effectively paying $99 for Windows.) Of course, if you as an end-user buy an OEM copy and install it on your own machine for your own use, and later get caught you could say that you bought the OEM copy, installed it on the machine, sold the machine to your mother (legitimising the OEM copy) and then she sold it back to you.
EULA are hardly upheld in court. If a line of the EULA said "You agree to give Steve Jobs fellatio on a nightly basis if you install this software", do you think that would hold up in court? Of course not.
Why would an EULA include that or anything similar?
Who the hell says they don't hold up in court?? They certainly do if the victimized party's IP rights have been violated and the EULA conforms to "fair use" standards.
EULAs are subject to limits. EULAs don't usually include grossly exaggerated requirements that have nothing to do with "fair use."
Just to be clear, there is precedence that a buyer can resell software they bought, but the modification and copying of said software is not allowed if they are going to sell it. The pre-installation, regardless if Psystar is still using a hacked copy of OS X, is a violation of that.
Here is some evidence that they were also using other's people's code without permission to get OS X installed and how it could hurt the tinkering OS X community.Mac EFI emulator license that Psystar was using and may still be using. This only one piece of this stolen puzzle. Their are plenty of drivers (KEXTs) that they'd have to steal, too.Now it looks like they are using Chameleon. This can do it with the original DVD, but it looks to require additional partitions which then recompiles (ie: hacking it) the OS X code for the final installation. The last time I built an OSx86 machine this method was not available. It looks like no matter how you slice it Psystar is in multiple violations.
He doesn't understand that modifying a product and then turning around and reselling it with a buisness behind it is a problem.
This isn't about some kid playing around with a hackintosh. It''s about someone taking your product, cracking/modifying it, and then reslling it at a profit as part of a business to do the same, without your permission.
If someone has a problem with that, they have a problem with Intellectual Property law at large. Which means thta they have serious issues when it comes to understanding the marketplace and how people with ideas and products are supposed to function in it.
And according to others in this thread, EULAs have been tested in court and sometimes they've been upheld. Would be nice to see some links either way.
Here is a link to other links:Of course, none of this relates to Psystar as they are not the end user and the duplication and hacking of the IP is not covered by this law.
Why should the consumer effectively pay Microsoft two different prices for the same thing depending on the channel through which he buys it? (i.e. buy at retail and you pay $199 for Windows, but buy a new computer from Dell and you're effectively paying $99 for Windows.)
Dell is buying it at a bulk rate and in bulk packaging which we know lowers the price. It also allows MS to maintain a built in dominance by having major OEMs with Windows pre-installed. They can offer lower rates if they include the Windows sticker on their machines and agree to other terms.
Of course, if you as an end-user buy an OEM copy and install it on your own machine for your own use, and later get caught you could say that you bought the OEM copy, installed it on the machine, sold the machine to your mother (legitimising the OEM copy) and then she sold it back to you.
MS' OEM partner licensing strictly forbids them from reselling OEM discs without the accompanying HW, yet I've heard of people being able to do so.
He doesn't understand that modifying a product and then turning around and reselling it with a buisness behind it is a problem.
This isn't about some kid playing around with a hackintosh. It''s about someone taking your product, cracking/modifying it, and then reslling it at a profit as part of a business to do the same, without your permission.
If someone has a problem with that, they have a problem with Intellectual Property law at large. Which means thta they have serious issues when it comes to understanding the marketplace and how people with ideas and products are supposed to function in it.
Apple might have a problem with it, and it looks like it does, but since Psystar's copies of OS X are are all legal, purchased copies of Mac OS X, Apple does not really have a foot to stand on legally other than their EULA.
Buying something, modifying it, and then selling it IS LEGAL as long as copyright was not violated. The only thing it violates is whatever crap Apple has in its EULA.
It is like saying that someone buys a car, modifies its internal computer, and sells it again is committing an illegal act and can be prosecuted by the car manufacturer, which is simply bogus.
This isn't about some kid playing around with a hackintosh. It''s about someone taking your product, cracking/modifying it, and then reslling it at a profit as part of a business to do the same, without your permission.
Case in point, I've built several Hackintoshs using the very handy HCLs, walkthroughs and code supplied through InsanelyMac and other sources. I have no problem with and see nothing illegal about altering IP that you use on a personal level. But what Psystar is doing is illegal on many levels. Worse than that, it's against a free market system and they are doomed even if they could win this case. Still waiting for g3pro to respond to my question on that.