Submitted by Apple has filed a suit (more details) on July 3rd against Psystar in the northern district of California. Psystar dubbed its cheap Mac Clone as Open Computer and started shipping them around April of this year.
Apple has filed a suit (more details) on July 3rd against Psystar in the northern district of California. Psystar dubbed its cheap Mac Clone as Open Computer and started shipping them around April of this year.
It was only a matter of time.
yeah, I’m surprised it took this long.
Yeah, it took only 12 days for OSNews to find the news.A matter of time. Timing,sorry.
I agree we don’t spend enough time digging through complaint dockets looking for news :p.
I wonder what Psystar needs to copy in order to make a Mac clone.
They do not violate the EULA themselves, just the people who install Leopard violate the EULA.
And nobody needs to install Leopard in order to get the computer working, one could just install a Linux distro which runs on Apple hardware.
I think Apple will have a hard time prooving that Psystar did something wrong.
Well, at least this might hopefully put to rest the question over whether Apple’s EULA is enforceable in the US, specifically the clause referring to not installing OS X on any non-Apple hardware. This could set a legal precedent regarding EULAs and how they are enforced and/or how binding they are.
– edit –
forget what i wrote, you’re obviously right:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9328
Edited 2008-07-15 21:28 UTC
Unfortunately Apple decided to go this way. Apple can’t tell people what to do with software that people paid for. Apple can’t tell hardware manufacturers and resellers what to sell and what not to sell. Even Microsoft is more open than Apple.
(edit: I should add that this isn’t aimed directly at you, merely an in-general statement brought about by your comment)
If you don’t agree with Apple’s practices and terms, don’t buy their stuff.
Seriously, is this really, really hard for people to grasp or something?
It feels like people have this misconception that “voting with your wallet” means buying a companies stuff even though they disagree with them, and then complaining about it endlessly.
Apple can tell people what to do with their hardware and software as long as people keep buying it, regardless of “come see the violence inherit in the system!” complaints.
Edited 2008-07-15 20:32 UTC
I wouldn’t buy anything from Apple, not even an iPod.
Not giving their blessing to Psystar is one thing. Suing them for selling hardware is something else. Since when nobody can sell hardware that supports MacOS (except Apple of course)?
This is a regrettable decision for the consumers (less choice) and for Apple (this is how you get more market share). Whatever, I don’t give a flying shit actually.
I won’t buy a Mac or a Mac clone in a thousand years.
This is a very bad move. I mean, the latest Apples are just dual core pentiums with intel gfx. Pretty much standard on dirt cheap PC’s
Are we mow going to see Apple sue every PC manufacturer becuse someone “might” be able to install OSX on their white box ?
<p>Of course not. The lawsuit targets an incorporated name unlawfully selling pre-installed copies of OS X or offering services to install OS X illegally on non-Apple hardware.</p>
<p>If the douchebag had offered to publish a thorough write up on how to install it there would be no lawsuit and people would run the risk, on their own, of seeing their warranty policies nullified and getting zero support from Apple.</p>
The article states, “Apple alleges licensing and trademark violations and copyright infringement.” The only one of these alleged acts that could be construed as unlawful or illegal (criminal) might possibly be the charge of copyright infringement. However, the copyright infringement probably would only be criminal if Pystar sold many copies (installed or otherwise) from one master copy.
Remember, an EULA is a private contract — not a government law.
It sounds like the only barely legitimate argument that Apple can make is that the Pystar computers are “diluting” the Mac brand (which is not a criminal offense).
Edited 2008-07-16 00:59 UTC
“The only one of these alleged acts that could be construed as unlawful or illegal (criminal) might possibly be the charge of copyright infringement. However, the copyright infringement probably would only be criminal if Pystar sold many copies (installed or otherwise) from one master copy.”
Actually, under copyright law if they distributed it in any form, they are guilty. That would be the copyright infringement, the fact that they decided to distribute a work without the authors (Apple) consent. That is enough right there.
Of course not. The lawsuit targets an incorporated name unlawfully selling pre-installed copies of OS X or offering services to install OS X illegally on non-Apple hardware.
If the douchebag had offered to publish a thorough write up on how to install it there would be no lawsuit and people would run the risk, on their own, of seeing their warranty policies nullified and getting zero support from Apple. [/q]
Unlawfully selling illegal OS?
Since when is it illegal to install a legaly bought software on a computer?
Where did you find that it’s illegal?
Or are you one of those gullible dimwits that will do anything anyone tells them or will believe anything they read anywhere just because it was printed?
Just because Apple says you can’t do something means squat. Apple does not have any law making powers.
The only claim Apple can make is that Psystar is damaging Apple’s brand and even that is highly arguable.
And if you believe that Apple computers have any higher quality parts than other computers then you’ve obviously haven’t seen an inside of a computer yet.
install OS X illegally on non-Apple hardware
There is nothing illegal about it. It may be in violation of contract, but that is not illegal. One does wish people would think and talk with the same precision about these kinds of matters, that they would use when writing and specifying code.
Or maybe they do, in which case one shudders to think what their code must be like!
The problem here seems to be that Psystar is selling the cloned hardware + OSX. If they had only sold the cloned hardware, I doubt that Apple would have a leg to stand on, legally speaking. The solution is pretty simple (but a pain in the ass): Psystar is going to have to decouple the sale of their hardware from the installation of OSX; ergo, they’re going to have to let somebody else install OSX. Naturally, Apple is betting that no consumer is going to want to go through that kind of hassle just to get a clone with OSX, and they’re probably right. It’s odd: For all the criticism that Microsoft gets, Apple is 10 times worse when it comes to OS licensing. MS doesn’t give a rat’s ass about which hardware you install their products on. Apple, on the other hand, is ready to deploy a phalanx of attorneys to sue anyone into submission who dares to challenge their platform monopoly.
Please explain how Apple can legally prevent someone from hiring Pystar to install OSX on their newly-purchased, Pystar hardware.
Psystar isn’t selling “cloned hardware”.
Psystar is selling systems that are compatible with the open source hacks that make OS X run on generic hardware.
They are just building systems that have the largest amount of hardware compatible with the hack.
It’s generic hardware you can buy ANYWHERE.
What Psystar is selling is the packaging of the computer with a retail copy of OS X and the Hack pre-installed.
I think what has finally got Apple hacked off is that Psystar is intercepting “Software Update” and modifying the packages so they won’t break the system.
As the suit goes on, I’ll bet this will be the major issue for the “copyright infringement”.
Only Apple can legally distribute their software updates.
Microsoft is a software maker. They don’t sell PCs. Their business model is not built around hardware. They couldn’t care less what you tried to install Windows on, as long as they are paid for it.
Apple is a hardware manufacturer that only sell upgrades to the OS to people who buy the hardware. The OS is their property. They can decide what hardware it is permissible to sell it on, because they don’t really sell the OS.
//They can decide what hardware it is permissible to sell it on, because they don’t really sell the OS. //
So, I can’t go to an Apple store, and pick up a copy OS X right from the shelf and buy it?
Weird. I thought that’s exactly what I could do.
a while back I had emailed Pystar about purchasing a “barebone” version of their current $399 open computer. I advised that I already had a licensed legal copy of leopard and that I would use my own method for installing it. instead of responding sure and quoting me a price for a barebone system with just a case power supply and motherboard they made a point to advise that they didn’t sell parts and that they wouldn’t advise on parts for setting up a system with leopard.
maybe now the owner of pystar will realize that if he is willing to do that, and avoid installing software he can make a profit without violating any EULA agreements,etc. Afterall there is nothing wrong with stating that your equipment is macOS compatible if you don’t install their software.
Am I right on my thinking for this?
Now that we’re on the subject, Apple also sucks at making waffles and selling insurance. There’s just no end of reasons to hate them!
This comparison is absurd. What meaning is there in saying they’re worse about something they have no interest (both senses of the word) in doing? People say Apple is a hardware company because they are: Imagine if Psystar had stolen an embedded OS instead, such as by making an iPhone clone, and you might see why this disrupts Apple’s business model.
No one can beat Microsoft at licensing PC software. Just ask IBM, NeXT, Caldera, Be, and Sun. Microsoft only makes money on the deal because of their aggressive tactics that ensure that fact: Until very recently, every generic PC from every generic PC supplier came with Windows. THAT is a monopoly, and I’m sick of people corrupting the meaning of that word by using it to describe vertically integrated platforms or just any successful OS they don’t like. The correct word for those is niche, or even more simply, product. The fact that Microsoft sells a retail Windows you can put on anything is just a very expensive form of double dipping, and without their established monopoly it would be no different from Be in terms of success for the company.
Apple is in no position to be Microsoft, because you can’t get the entire PC industry paying you a software tax overnight, and Apple is in no position to share their software with the world in some kind of charitable act like Linux because they have shareholders who wouldn’t like it if they sabotaged their own source of profits, selling hardware, which, incidentally, is the reason they can afford to develop the software, which, in turn, is the reason their hardware is worth more than someone else’s equivalently spec’d machine. All that is why you buy OS X on Apple’s terms or not at all: if not for Apple’s terms, there would be no OS X at all.
Mac tried to licence it’s OS to ther hardware makers. There where problems, and it didn’t help them get more market share either.
In short: it was a experience for Apple. They probably don’t want to repeat that mistake. (+ Jobs is a crazy controlfreak.)
Seeing as you clearly didn’t work there I’ll put it bluntly, by stating that the Clone Market didnt’ grow the Apple market but cannibalized pre-existing Mac customers.
The fact they didn’t grow the market for Macs was the reason the Clone Program was yanked, but more to the point, Apple had 21 separate Marketing Groups when us NeXT merged with Apple. The way to save Apple was to consolidate redundant groups, unify the marketing vision and reintroduce a streamlined product sheet from Apple. The product sheet was a joke and in complete chaos when we arrived.
…a result that was only possible because Apple couldn’t (and still can’t) kick their addiction to exorbitant profit margins, which made it laughably-easy for the cloners to beat Apple on price. Apple might as well have been wearing a “Please out-compete me” sign around their collective neck.
The Mac clones were cheaper, faster and supported PC peripherals such as mice and keyboards. They undercut Macs by a considerable margin. All they did was prove how overpriced Macs really were at the time.
Actually, the clones grew the Mac market share from 3% of the market to just over 5%.
The problem with the clones was that they were eating Apple’s lunch. They were coming out with faster, better machines in shorter cycles than Apple.
Apple wanted the clones to take the low-end of the market. Power Computing and Motorola did that, AND came out with machines that blew Apple’s away on the high end as well.
It was a year after Apple shut down Motorola and Power before Apple produced a PPC model that was as fast and advanced as the ones that were out the year before.
Apple didn’t want to become another IBM that let the “PC Compatible” market make them an also-ran.
Perhaps smart for Apple, but bad for us.
Who knows what kind of Macs we’d have today if Apple had simply licensed back the best designs and released them under the Apple Label.
Instead, Apple shut down innovation.
>> Suing them for selling hardware is something else. Since when nobody can sell hardware that supports MacOS (except Apple of course)? <<
Apple isn’t suing Psystar for selling “MacOS X Compatible Hardware”, because they aren’t. Nobody can. Apple puts stuff on the boards and in the BIOS that MacOS X looks for, and that nobody else can legally replicate. Plus, it wouldn’t be financially sound for someone to keep re-engineering boards to be MacOS X compatible.
Apple is suing Psystar for selling systems pre-loaded with MacOS X and modifying MacOS X to work on otherwise incompatible boards.
Apple is claiming that Psystar is selling a derivative and unlicensed version of MacOS X. Which is based on the Retail MacOS X, but is altered in contravention of the license.
Whether that will hold up in court is interesting.
In any event, Apple makes more money from iPods and iPhones and the iTunes Music Store.
If they lose this suit and tons of Apple Clones start being marketed by Dell and Gateway… It won’t hurt them all that much.
It might hurt us if Apple decides not to continue making computers or slows down the development on MacOS X.
We might lose, even if we “win”.
In most cases, I would say that is true. As for PsyStar itself, their actions may be construed as an act of civil disobedience. This was not under the table stuff. It was done in plain view. Unfortunately, there was monetary gain. But it could be argued that Apple would not have launced a credible lawsuit based upon the EULA otherwise.
Some people have this misconception that businesses are democratic, and that buying stuff is a means of giving them a vote. This is completely untrue, which is one reason why transactions with businesses are subject to a lot of regulation.
Some of those regulations concern the ownership of property. This entails rights which pretty much every EULA argues that you do not have. The sad fact is, too much of our computer use is governed by EULAs. Even open source software presents an EULA to the user, even though those are much more balanced than their commercial counterparts.
So if someone wants to take on a company like Apple to try to invalidate, or at least limit the use of, EULAs, I congratulate them. And I sincerely hope that is what Psystar was trying to do when coming out in such a public manner.
How is it civil disobedience to steal someone else’s hard work and try to make cash out of it. Don’t make them into a martyr, they are far from it. The author of the OSX86 project clearly denounced the project as he didn’t intend his work to be used commercially, yet Psystar went ahead and did it anyway. Civil disobedience my ass, they are plain crooks.
They’re not stealing anything. PsyStar s buying legal copies of OS X, and then re-sells those to its customers. This is perfectly legal, and doesn’t have ANYthing to do with stealing. For every PsyStar Leopard clone box sold, Apple gets the license money.
I was talkign about the hacked kernel work. The guy who created the firmware hack that psystar is using explicitly stated he did not want his work used commercially. Its stealing, imo.
You seem to have misspelled “love it or leave it!”
But we have right to criticize what Apple does right? This is about freedom of speech.
Apple IMO is worst company. One that itself [ab]uses open source and on top of that doesn’t even let users decide what hardware they want to run their OS on.
Rotten Apple!
Edited 2008-07-16 00:31 UTC
Indeed. Complaints about the business practices of a large mass-merchandiser and the way they undercut the “Mom & Pop” stores abound, but these same people shop there because it’s cheaper than anywhere else! Can’t have it both ways….
Well, sure, they can tell people that but that doesn’t mean people have an obligation to follow. That’s what we call consumer law.
who died and made you boss of people’s opinions? Complaining about a licensing practice or product is just as much a way of “wallet voting” as anything else. Besides, when it comes to large companies as well as monopolies “wallet voting” does NOT work which is the whole point of anti-trust.
I’m not saying that Apple is a monopoly at all btw I’m just pointing out the fallacy of your argument satan666.
Apple doesn’t sell software. They sell you a right to use.
Just like you don’t own the music that you buy a right to listen to on a CD.
Well, that’s the debate. That is how software companies and music companies would like it to be. However, whether that is how the law (in whatever territory you live in) allows that is a different, and rather unclear, issue. This case will go some way to resolving it.
Ahh…but Sony Music can’t specify that you can only listen to the music on the CD with a Sony player though can they?
The issue here is not ‘illegality’…it’s not ‘illegal’ to install OSX on other hardware…but it does make it ‘unsupported’. By installing the software on any hardware beyond a Mac, you’re breaking the EULA and so, you’re on your own. Good luck to ya.
Beyond that, Apple have no right to force you to do anything.
And you do realise that Microsoft and Apple have completely different models – Microsoft can do what they do because they’re a software company; Apple can’t do what Microsoft does because it would require a complete change in the model – and it is doubtful that it would pay off in the end.
As for your psuedo-human-rights rant over what one should be allowed to do with their software – how is that any different to, for example, a games company refusing to pay royalties to Sony for their game to run on the Sony Playstation platform? the whole business models falls over because of it. Its because of this very model that you can pick up a Playstation for a few hundred rather than a few thousand.
Heck, there are restrictions placed on software all the time – what about academic software? using your logic, thousands of students would miss out on cheap software because of your ‘one size fits all approach’ thinks its going to enhance freedom when in reality it screws over the very people it is meant to assist.
Back to Apple again, I might have had sympathy if this were 15 years ago, and a Mac low end would set one back around NZ$4,000. That isn’t the case now. Mac’s are accessible in price; heck, a MacBook in New Zealand costs around NZ$2099 incl GST, which is no more expensive than a HP bought from a big name retailer. I picked up an iMac for, 2.6Ghz model with everyone one would need – at a price similar to that of HP and NEC computers on sale in big name retailers.
I’ve got nothing against it simiply as a research project to understand how things work, but when a company gets behind it, and starts making money off it – it moves it into a whole new ball park; just as I’ve maintained that opensource projects should be exempt from patent payments when the code and binaries are shipped stand alone and free of charge. It is about being reasonable.
Edited 2008-07-16 02:31 UTC
I disagree, especially with the climate nowadays. The change in their model is that they would have to hike the price of OSX. They would make a lot of money and get a hell of alot more users even if they jumped to vista home premium prices. They could even do it simultaniously with keeping the hardware with the huge margins, and discount the price for “Mac only” versions of OSX.
It isn’t even like drivers are a problem, the hackintosh community is pretty damn small, but they have been able to get it to the point where osx can run on almost anything.
I completely agree with that. This idea that it is morally wrong for someone who owns something to decide how it can or cannot be used REALLY bothers me.
This idea that people can own thoughts and ideas really bothers me.
Nobody would accept it if you were only allowed to wash <brand X> clothes in a <brand X> washing machine. Nobody would find it reasonable to be forced to read his books sitting on a posture fixing chair.
Yet we are being told it’s “normal” to not be allowed to copy your music on your computers harddrive.
And before watching some movie I have to listen to some stupid drivel about how wrong it is to rip or download movies, how everybody doing it is a criminal and belongs in jail…
Hello? If I’d downloaded it, I wouldn’t have to listen to this sh*t right now! It’s MY damn dvd and I didn’t buy it to be lectured on copyright, that’s for sure! I’ll watch whatever part I like, whenever I want to, on a device of MY choice – whether it has a dvd drive or not!
There is no way to extend the concept of property of physical objects to copyright and IP in a canonical way.
Copyright and the likes are not an essential or natural right, they are a temporary monopoly on distribution, GRANTED to content producers in the hope of encouraging the creation of more content for the benefit of society.
Currently, this system is turned upside down.
It’s being used by greedy control freaks to push restrictions to an extent that – as shown above – is just plain ridiculous.
And they succeed because most people don’t care about freedom or truth or justice, they just try to avoid punishment.
So until copyright gets annoying to even the dumbest, most lethargic slave I’ll have to buy back my innate freedom in pathetic little pieces.
Luckily, this shouldn’t take much longer…
You are right, nobody would, and brand X required that NOBODY WOULD BUY IT.
Again, DONT BUY IT.
If you want me to go more into this I will, but the short answer is that copyright needs to be reformed now the same way it has been reformed dozens of times in the past, so it can deal with the new emerging technologies. It should not be abolished, as intellectual property is becoming more valuable an asset as time goes on, and does need protection.
If I create something, you have no right to it unless I grant it. That is what it comes down to. To argue that you do is basically an argument for communism, and there are many examples I can cite to prove that it is a system that does not produce innovation.
The way our system works is that the market decides what it can bear. Personally, I think the restrictions around HD content is absolutely draconian and insane, so I boycott the medium. If enough people boycott, the company will either respond to market pressure or die. This is basic economics, and has nothing to do with morality. If a company chooses to be stupid, it is their right.
Surely you’re familiar with consumer law and consumer protection? Just because you are selling a product doesn’t mean you can come up with any kind of crazy requirements that your customers must fulfill.
Like how you can’t require that “You can not purchase and use X if you’re black/j3wish/martian”.
Note: I did not know j3wish was a bad word…
Edited 2008-07-16 17:29 UTC
I figure you’re approaching the topic from a libertarian angle?
There are several problems, most of which are problems of libertarianism in general.
The short answer is this: It isn’t practical.
If all freedom loving people acted like this, a lot of them would have to leave computing and the situation would get worse, not better.
“You don’t have to do X, you can always die instead (or do some simple, low paid work – you get the picture)” may be true philosophically speaking but it’s not really a satisfying alternative.
Actually that’s about the first reasonable answer I ever got from anybody who disagreed with me on this topic. Could result from my definition of reasonable though
Anyway, I’d love to discuss this further, either in this thread or in “Conversations” or per PM or per email (ben underscore schuenemann, last part is yahoo dot de). Who knows, this might evolve into a full blown article – I’ve always wanted to see a reasonably unbiased article about this topic.
So that the silly points of both sides wouldn’t come up again and again.
And again.
I’ve got to warn you though, I have a couple of exams coming up so I might not be able to answer you as fast as I’d like to. But I will eventually answer.
Actually, we’re in violent agreement there
As economies go from industry to IT, it is important to have and refine the _concept_ of intellectual property.
Let’s get one thing out of the way:
I’m not a communist. Not even remotely.
OK, now the first question is “How do you define ‘create’?”, the second question is “What’s ‘something’?”. In short, it boils down to whether or not you’re a Platonist. If you are, you don’t ‘create’, if you’re not, there’s no ‘something’ that you could create. I can expand on this if you think I should.
While pure communism obviously doesn’t work, pure libertarianism (anarcho capitalism?) doesn’t work either. One reason is that humans aren’t perfectly rational. We are social animals. And as such we are prone to certain errors (herd instinct, social engineering, you name it). I’m not denying personal responsibility. I’m just saying that _on_average_, human behavior is actually quite predictable. Take for example ancient Rome, where poor people would usually sell their vote. It screwed up the whole political system.
Of course you could design a perfectly rational system of laws, based on a few axioms, watch society go downhill and claim that it’s everybody’s own fault. And you’d be right. But that doesn’t help anybody.
We have laws to protect consumers for a reason:
Let’s say you sold some bread and the box in which you sold it had an EULA printed on it that says “By eating this bread you accept that it contains poison of which you might die. I’m not in any way responsible.”. People expect such packaging to contain information about the ingredients, among them common allergens. But somebody who isn’t allergic probably wouldn’t read it.
Carrying this analogy over to music, most people are aware that they are not allowed to sell copies of a cd they bought. It would obviously bankrupt the label!
They don’t expect, however, to be punished for just ripping some songs or movies on their harddisk.
The enormous effort spent on “educating” people about copyright tells me that there’s something seriously wrong with it. Laws concerning everyday life should be simple and obvious. If you’re having a hard time “educating” people about rules, the rules work against our social instincts, not with them.
I know only two guys who’ve ever stolen anything (small things, I could understand their motivation (revenge) but I myself wouldn’t have done it).
Yet, I’m not sure if I know A SINGLE PERSON who hasn’t broken copyright REPEATEDLY.
That’s something to think about.
Apparently, it is up to court, and to you, to decide.
DG
As King Koopa would say: “This is gonna be excellent”.
Why would you take glee in Apple filing a lawsuit against Psystar? Psystar is tiny, and can’t possibly be hurting Apple, despite what they say in their legal complaint.
Edited 2008-07-16 00:59 UTC
No, the joy is in if Psytar bringing up the EULA issue.
What happens when a particular version of OSX becomes obsolete? Does the EULA remain legally valid, or does it become rescinded along with support for the software?
As the EULA is a legal document, it will be still valid as long as someone owns the right to it – in this case, Apple inc.
Of course, as its been said, the EULA is only valid in a country that accepts that as a legal document with everything there in as above board and legit.
If its found that the practice of not allowing MacOS to be installed on a non-apple machine is not lawfully enforced in, say France for example, then the EULA is invalid and can be disregarded. Apple will then have to re-write the EULA and add a clause for that particular country.
However, depending on the courts ruling, the legality may or may-not stand for the existing EULA that is in use now. Meaning, we could be allowed to use old software but not the new software (under a rewritten EULA) and thats only if they decide to re-write it.
The EULA on Windows 95 and even 3.x is still enforced so why wouldn’t your scenario?
1. They’re a hardware company. They sell you hardware; Macbooks, iMacs, Mac Minis, whatever. Hardware. Not software. OSX is installed as to be a part of the “experience”. Anytime there’s Apple software for Windows, it’s really just a thinly veiled marketing ploy to get you to buy a…..Mac.
2. By only allowing OSX on their hardware, they control the experience. With Apple, you (generally) don’t have to worry about wireless driver issues, graphics card issues, chipset incompatibilities, etc. I say generally. There’s always exceptions.
The sooner people realize the above and just buy something else if they don’t like it, the sooner we can all move along.
p.s. The only Mac I own is an 6-7 year old crusty 400Mhz PowerBook, so I’m hardly a fanboy.
You are misunderstanding the issue – along with quite a few others on this thread and elsewhere.
The issue is not whether Eulas are enforceable. Some conditions in Eulas are, some are not. Whether a given condition is enforceable depends on the law of the land. The fact that its in a Eula is neither here nor there.
If a Eula (or any other clause of a contract) contains restrictions which are not lawfully enforceable in the jurisdiction in which you buy and use, then the answer is not either to accept it, or if you don’t like it, don’t buy. This is a misunderstanding of the situation.
The vendor is attempting to enforce a condition which is unlawful. The answer is, refuse to comply if you feel like it. You are under no obligation to comply with the vendor’s wishes. Clauses which are unlawful are void. If you decide not to comply with one, feel free to buy the product anyway. Why ever not?
The question is also not anything to do with the unique Apple experience due to integration of hardware and software, and all the rest of that stuff. There is nothing in the law that protects Apple’s business model. Yes, clones may well compete with Apple’s hardware. Tough. Yes, clones may well undermine Apple’s business model. Where is it written that this is unlawful?
The question is not whether you buy or license. There is no doubt: you buy. You do not buy the OS. You buy a copy of it. Just like you buy a copy of the book or the music.
The question is not about copyright. You’ve bought a copy, so you have the right to use that copy. What you don’t have is the right to make extra copies, share it, give it away and so on.
OK, what is the question then? Its very simple. Its whether the supplier of a good can constrain your post sale use of it, by conditions imposed in the sales agreement.
In the EC, the answer is no. Now, it may be that Apple will persuade Psystar to give up. But that will not change the legal rights and wrongs of the matter. Apple cannot tell you what to install your OSX on. Just as MS cannot tell you what to run your copy of Office on. And neither can Wolf tell you what tool ends to clip into your Wolf garden tool handle. And neither can Sony tell you what player you are allowed to watch your DVD on.
Edited 2008-07-15 22:15 UTC
Don’t macs have a dongle of some sort, or at least some sort of propriatary BIOS that lets the OS know if the machine has been blessed by apple or not? Either way, I’m pretty sure getting around either would be a DMCA violation in america.
Land of the Free. Home of the Brave.
“Land of the Free. Home of the Brave.”
I agree with that.
Though it came across as sarcasm…
Just know that there are people (me) who have and will defend with my life your right to say whatever you want to, whether I agree to it or not.
Go ahead and mod this one down folks, I just felt a need to answer that.
Yes, it would be violating the DCMA in terms of the nature of what was done, but there is an explicit get-out which allows you to do just that if the aim is to circumvent restrictions which restrain competition. So for instance it is OK to hack a mobile if the aim is to be able to use it on another network. It is fine to hack a garage door opener if the aim is to be able to use competitive remotes.
google_ninja
NOPE.
“TPM DRM” In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won’t Die
Amit Singh
Beating a Dead Horse
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/
“In October 2006, I wrote about the TPM and its “use” in Mac OS X. Since Apple provided no software or firmware drivers for the TPM …
“Apple’s TPM Keys”
“The media has been discussing “Apple’s use of TPM” for a long time now. There have been numerous reports of system attackers bypassing “Apple’s TPM protection” and finding “Apple’s TPM keys.” Nevertheless, it is important to note that Apple does not use the TPM.”
Edited 2008-07-16 17:46 UTC
I didn’t know that, but I never said I did. I also said “dongle”, not TPM. Turns out it is a 32bit key inside of this:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1411?viewlocale=en_US
Considering it is an obfuscated value inside a closed component, I’m pretty sure apple could still use the DMCA.
Noooo …
“TPM DRM” In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won’t Die
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/
“The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC). Unlike in the case of a TPM, accessing this key involves no cryptography, no random numbers, no hardware security – it’s merely obfuscation.”
But feel free to use the chip if your model has it:
Trusted Computing for Mac OS X
(check “Downloads”)
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/
Dongle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongle
System Management Controller – SMC: (Intel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Management_Controller
Power Management Unit – PMU: (PPC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Management_Unit
System Management Unit – SMU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_management_unit
Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
The SMC/SMU and the previous PMU – cache controller settings:
“The System Management Unit (SMU) is an advanced internal subsystem introduced in late 2004 with the iMac G5 and Power Mac G5 series computers. It manages the functions previously governed by the PMU (Power Management Unit) as well as additional cooling functions.”
Though most anything is hackable, chip crowding, rouge Open Firmware/EFI hacks, etc.
Edited 2008-07-19 03:39 UTC
Not true. I can walk into a store and purchase OSX in a pretty little box right now if I was so inclined. There is no proviso to purchase hardware at point of sale.
Oh really? So they give away OSX for free along with any upgrades? I must have overlooked that.
When I say they’re a hardware company, I mean that is their primary goal. It’s not to sell billions of copies of just the operating system. It’s to sell millions of Macs along with it.
I’m fully aware you can walk in and buy Apple software. That wasn’t the point I am trying to make.
Apple still doesn’t get the fact why they will never be as big as Microsoft, because Microsoft doesn’t make computers, they make the OS for the computers. This lawsuit against Pystar only shows that Apple will continue in its self restricting business practices.
If Apple would sell licenses to clone their computers, they lose out on the hardware end but would more they make up for it on the software end. Apple insist on making their own hardware and the software for it. If they would have made their OS to run on PCs from the beginning, they would probably be the software giant instead of being an expensive niche that has managed to survive because of loyal users and innovative designs.
Their approach toward the computer is better suited to gadgets like the ipod and iphone.
Apple likes to think they aren’t as “corporate” as Microsoft, but they are, just in a different way. Microsoft just insists that you use their software on your computer, Apple wants not only for you to use their software, but to only use it on their computers.
Edited 2008-07-15 21:40 UTC
I’d give OSX a decent go if only I could run it legally on my PC. I’m not going to buy their hardware just for the ‘privilage’ to use their software.
Until they increase their scope of supported hardware, it’s Windows for me.
I’m sure they are very distraught on hearing this 🙂
Their shareholders might be, since my money is going to Microsoft rather than Apple.
I’m a shareholder and I couldn’t care less. Apple shareholders know who the company’s target audience is and it isn’t you, was never intended to be you and will never be you.
You simply seek something that Apple does not intend to provide (and that’s fine).
What difference does it make? The target audience can and will change and move as the product evolves, attitudes change, “environmental circumstances” shift (e.g. security, ease of use, etc).
I’m quite suprised you don’t care about leaving the PC users out of the market opportunity. It’s the biggest market and has the potential for millions of more customers, users, sales and bigger dividends.
And do you really think the plain fact the whole world is hacking MacOS X is not going to harm Apple? I mean, I did it too and got it to run on an AMD 5600+ based PC with a cheap Abit mobo. It’s patent Apple are doing a stupid thing to keep their OS tied to plain x86 hardware the way they did when they used to sell PPC based computers. I’m not sure Apple’s biz model is clever: they have clonable hardware and a hackable OS and if they don’t think something up quickly all they’ll be able to do is sell post-PC devices (just to quote freely Mr Jobs): phones, MP*-players and maybe microwave oven-tv’s.
I simply found out Mac OS doesn’t thrill me that much and I still can’t understand what people like about it.
The problem is that if you were to give it a go, and found that mac os x didn’t run very well on your white box you’d not use it again, and in most cases the assumption made is that its no good. Thus, harming Apple’s reputation.
One of the key reasons why people like Mac OS is because the OS is designed for a specific set of hardware, rather then anything and everything The result is that it just works, out of the box.
if you want to try Mac OS the best idea would be to visit your local PC store that has a selection of Macs to try or a official Apple store where they’ll be more then happy to let you play around with the machines to your hearts content.
Great. Windows, Linux and BSD can’t be harmed if something doesn’t work, but OSX, poor, poor stepchild can be easily harmed by just one bruise..
Also, as Apple uses the same Intel hardware, what’s the difference?
OS is designed for a specific set of hardware, rather then anything and everything
This is nuts. The only difference is what drivers are included. Of course it is not designed for a specific set of hardware in any sense that makes it unique compared to Windows etc. Yes, its designed for the X86 processor set, and yes, that’s why it just works. Well, so is everything else that runs on X86.
Marketing!
I agree that Apple has a long way to go before they are as big as Microsoft.
Apple has a different business plan than Microsoft. They focus on the customer’s experience not on expanding on to every piece of hardware that they find where they couldn’t ensure a quality experience from.
They do not license their OS out to other hardware manufactures for good reasons.
Many PC manufacturers load down their PC’s with bloatware and advertisments that degrade the experience of Microsoft’s OS. Selling stripped down budget systems also hurts Windows Vista that works better on PCs with better specs.
When a person talks about their computer they usually associate it with the name of the manufacturer not the OS. “I have a Dell, Gateway or HP” When you say I have a Mac there is a better association with OS X.
It is great when tech support can troubleshoot your hardware and operation system with one phone call versus Dell referring you to call Microsoft when Vista misbehaves.
Yes this limits them to a smaller market share. However, their customers are more satisfied and their stock is a lot higher.
They are suing Pystar because of their bad execution and why would they want Pystar’s ugly boxes compared to their quality product?
With all respect, Apple has a lot of very business-savvy people working for them. A LOT. They research every possibility of the market, come up with prototypes that we’ll never see, and pore over every potential buck. That’s how big, successful companies work.
Do you really think they’ve never considered releasing OS X to the mass market? Apple is out to make money — the top bods have to for the shareholders. If Apple discovered that opening OS X would bring in much more money than their current business model, as you claim, they would do it.
Again, there are a LOT of business smart people at Apple looking into many different possible routes for the company. They know more than a lot of armchair execs sitting around on websites saying “omg apple doesnt get it” when the company is doing very well.
If Apple isn’t doing it, it’s because it won’t make money in the long term, whatever some random website schmoes say. And hey, I’m just a schmoe as well.
Actually, you don’t get it. While many of the people who visit OSNews would like to see Apple open up OS X to be freely used on any PC hardware, it’s not in Apple’s best interests to do so. Currently, they’re the 12th largest company in the US with a market cap of over $150 billion, and they’re closing in fast on IBM and Google. Their market share in terms of number of OS X users is neglibible compared to Windows, but they have the sweetest margins on PC hardware of any company out there. There is no financial reason for them to allow OS X on other people’s computers. The last time that they licsensed their OS to 3rd party manufacturers, it nearly bled the company dry.
that isn’t true at all that MSFT isn’t in the computer hardware business. The XBox and ZUNE are clearly a move to make sure they have a market if and when the world realizes that the choice of OS doesn’t matter anymore due to open standards.
We have all jumped on the eula of osx being the ‘reason’ for sueing
I doubt apple will want to open THAT can of worms!!
I would guess they will sue over the use of phrases like ‘apple compatible’ or ‘osx compatible’ as it was not certified by apple
It is far easier to use the DMCA as a reason to go after them. Apple now has a poster child to pin the whole Apple hacking (Maxxuss, Kalyway, Jas) on. They needed someone they could go after to stop (read discourage since you cant really stop it) the piracy. By suing the company they are sending a message. Dont pirate our stuff.
In wonderful Apple spin, they will make a big deal of this. Assuming it is not a hoax. There do not seem to be legal briefs on the net yet. And I would doubt something like this would be under seal or else we would not likely have even heard about it.
Did Psystar make a little oopsie? We all knew this was coming…in some form or another. Personally, I don’t see the problem. Mac OS-X can run on generic hardware. Apple needs to deal with that fact. No matter what sort of draconian dongles or software hurdles they put in place, someone, somewhere is going to circumvent it. Does Apple honestly think that Mac clones will end with the end of Psystar? Only a fool would believe so. So called Hackintosh computers will live on, however, now they’ll do so underground instead of in the light of day where Apple could have cashed in on their existence somehow and put a few more nails in Microsoft’s coffin at the same time. With market share of OS-X on the rise and Apple flush with cash due to iPhone and iPod sales, Apple couldn’t hurt itself to allow a few lower cost Mac clones to come into being.
I really doubt they think that the hackintosh will go away. However, only Psystar is trying to sell it to the public with a licensed copy of their software, no less. One thing that makes me think that Apple is going to win this, is the fact that every copy of OSX you buy off the shelfs is essentially an upgrade license, since you have to have a mac to install it on and every mac sold comes with OSX pre-installed. If that’s the case then Psystar is infringing their copyright since Psystar is selling full install licenses of OSX, which only Apple has access to. Its like trying to buy a Vista upgrade for a pirated license of windows, the only way its going to work is if you pirate the upgrade license as well. Also Psystar was modifying Apple’s code in-order to get OSX to install in the first place.
This is really unfair. It appears that the justice system is about who has more money to pay for lawyers rather than … you know … justice.
It’s really simple – Apple can’t do squat about the compatible hardware Pystar is selling, just the fact that they are providing the service of installing OS X on that piece of hardware.
So Pystar is breaking their EULA, which is anti-competitive IMO. Just imagine if Apple had 90% marketshare. Would they be allowed to impose such an EULA?
Apple should be more worried about the fact that Pystar’s products is successful. This means that it offers something that Apple’s products don’t offer – normal cheap computers.
Is it ‘justice’ that Apple spent time and money developing this OS and some upstart company comes along and puts a pc together which is not as compatible/stable?
The OS is not rebranded and therefore negative feelings towards it wont be blamed on Pystar but instead on apple.
If i buy a bottle of coke, let it go a little flat, pour it into a different bottle, can I sell it again as Adurbe Coca-Cola?
they should provide OpenSolaris/Milax or Belenix. Moreover if you look at foundry27 (QNX) they are writing drivers for some specific hardware, (I do not remember exactly : either a Dell or an HP model) which is pricey. Why not PSYSTAR’s products? Why don’t they co-operate? Having Solaris/QNX as free options MacOSX could be completely discarded along its licencing issues. Why insisting on this closed source OS when others are eager to help?
They could also offer FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD/DragonflyBSD and still be profitable (with Vista for closed source fanatics). This should an OpenComputer not a source of legal issues.
Why?
Then Psystar would be like one of dozens of other companies that sell PCs in small quantities.
Nobody wants those OSes for daily work.
The best two operating systems to get ones work done, day to day are Windows and MacOS X.
The WHOLE POINT of Psystar was to provide a low-end alternative to run MacOS X. NOT to sell another PC Box that runs Linux/Unix OSes.
You really miss the point of Psystar’s business model.
QNX is not UNIX. Linux is better than Windows. Solaris is better than MacOSX. QNX is uKernel, MacOSX is not.
Windows/MacOSX are closed source but the computer is marketed as OpenComputer. OPEN-COMPUTER!!!
Sharing code might seem obvious to Open Source people, but not to the rest. The code belongs to the author and author is the only person to decide what do with it. Opinions of other people do not count, and nobody is supposed to ask “why”. It is private property.
DG
I’ve seen this go round & round and many interesting points are being made.
This is how I see the situation when I boil away the broth & get to the noodles.
a. The Apple EULA is a contractual agreement between Apple and the end-user; not a point of law.
b. While the EULA isn’t a point of law, it is enforceable from an business & support perspective. Whith PyStar selling systems with Mac OS installed, the only, ‘issue,’ would seem to be that of support from Apple should the PyStar customers need anything (individually or collectively).
d. Apple has no obligation to PyStar customers in any shape or form as the OS in not installed on Apple’s hardware per the EULA.
e. If PyStar folds for any reason, those who bought their systems with Mac OS installed are on their own.
With the above, I have to ask:
1. Why is Apple filing? Are they really that concerned? From what I see, they’re off the hook in terms of support for PyStar customers and they still make money from OS sales & other s/w sales.
2. Is Apple simply being greedy? Saying, ‘Mine! All MINE!’
3. Is Apple concerned about their reputation & name associated with non-approved hardware & system builders?
Whether or not this is right or wrong isn’t what I was looking for. I was simply trying to boil it down to see through the mud.
Another option could be Apple WANT to licence their OS to OEMS
If I was paying to be a certified OEM I wouldnt want someone undercutting me before I start…
Imagine if HP started selling osx machines (they sold re-branded ipods remember)all the while this little company was undercutting it… It would almost certainly be a deal breaker to any OEM partner. Why pay when these guys are doing it for free??!
Psystar’s website is down. I wonder if this was due to a court order, or too heavy of a load now that they are back in the news?
Psystar actually hosts security updates from Apple and redistributes these to their customers.
No matter how you look at it, this is clear copyright infringement. Unless specifically granted by a license, redistribution of any copyrighted product is not permitted.
In the end Psystar probably used the OS X computers to get publicity for their other computers which nobody would ever have heard of otherwise. Whether it was worth it or not, depends on how much they have to pay in damages to Apple.
We host windows updates on our update server
We are not illigally distributing, same argument can be used by pystar
edit:- apple offer this feature as part of their server http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/features/client.html
Edited 2008-07-16 15:00 UTC
Apple and Microsoft license others to host UNMODIFIED copies of their updaters. Psystar is modifying the updaters when they break their “Open Computers”.
Psystar is violating the license.
Their updates are also unmodified (if you can prove/confirm otherwise please do)
As I understand they simply vet the updates ensuring that they do not destroy the os, if they do they dont roll those ones out
I think, from the site, that they may not host the updates themselves. The description on their site suggests that what they do is download you a script which then gets the updates from Apple, but modifies the installation process in some way.
If this is what they do, its very hard to see how it could be unlawful. I also do not recall it being forbidden in the Eula. And even if it were, it must be very unlikely that that clause would hold up.
Does this mean that users of OSX86 can get in trouble too?
Apple doesn’t care that a small number of hobbyist PC owners are hacking OS X to run on commodity PC hardware. There’s no real money lost there. Pystar incurred Apple’s wrath by taking the Hackintosh work and actively trying to compete with Apple in the marketplace.
Well all knew this was coming, it was just matter of time.
You can build a better one yourself for about $100 less than their cheapest one anyway, using parts from newegg.com or a similar parts dealer. To be frank, if you’re going to run a Hackintosh, what’s the point in buying it pre-made in the first place? It takes all the fun out of it.
Did anyone notice that the price of the Open PC went up by about 50 dollars already?