Apple's move to kill Hackintosher suit denied Apple's motion to toss out a lawsuit filed by pesky Hackintosher Psystar was itself tossed out by a US District Court judge. Make that one exasperated US District Court judge. Apple's motion was straightforward. It asked the judge who will hear Apple's suit against Psystar in January of 2010 - William Alsup of the US District …
Do some research you dicks - Apple are not pursuing the hackintosh market here - what you as an individual get up to with your copy of OS X is up to you. However if you then set up a business and try and sell them then of course you are in fucking breach of copyright and Apple has every right to stamp on you.
You dumbwits just don't get it.
this isn't aimed a any individual in particular.
For a group of individuals that are supposed to be 'intelligent" you lot say some stupid things:
Ford and VW designed and built the Galaxy/Sharan as a joint venture to compete with rather successful Renault Espace. So did Peugeot and FIAT. Peugeot and Citroën are part of the same group. Toyota, like Honda and Mitsubishi are wholesale parts manufacturers as well as car manufacturers. The moral? Do your research!
<rant>The same goes for competition law. Most of you seem to not understand the difference between Monopoly and anti-competiveness, or that in order to be deemed to be anti-competative, you must have a dominant position in the market! How, for instance, can a company that has less than 10% of a global market be deemed to be anti-competative? It just doesn't make sense, as the only ones that they are really harming are themselves! It's really not that difficult to understand. While I'm at it, market share is as meaningless as popularity as a measure for success—all that matters in business is MARKET CAPITAL; and brand and product are not the same fucking thing. </rant>
Posting your opinions is great, and can lead to some good debates (calling people names, Wrenchy, is juvenile on shows a distinct lack of intelligence), but please. Stop. Spouting. Shite. About. Things. That. You. Clearly. Don't. Understand.
I feel much better now that I've got that off my chest! Thanks for listening. That is all…
"But they are all subject to agreements and deals. If Ford didn't want to sell you engines, you couldn't obtain a supply, stick them in your cars and slap a 'Engine by Ford' badge on the back."
erm if you want direct support from Ford then you are right otherwise you are totally, cluelessly wrong.
You want a crated duratec Ford engine? There are 6 or 7 suppliers who could ship you one in a week. you want to stick it in your own chassis? Go ahead. You want to tell the world its got a Ford in the back, front or middle, again, go ahead. Stick an advert out and sell it, again go ahead. Just don't call it a Ford.
You want to build your on box, nip down to the apple sore or online at jigsaw and buy a copy of OS10. Easy. Stick it on your own box and suddenly you are in all sorts of trouble. See the difference? Me neither but then again sounds like there are a couple of Judges in the USA who might be struggling with to spot difference as well.
Of course _you_ have the right to install OSX on whatever you like, (probably).
What you don't have the right to do is re-sell another companies products in a way that they have expressly forbidden.
The car analogy initially made was too simple: this is like one of the kit-car companies insisting on being able to buy engines intended for the Pagani Zonda and fitting it to their own chassis. You could argue that Pagani have a monopoly on sports cars beginning with the letter Z, but it is not an abusive position.
1) Apple has a copyright on OS X and its software. In other words, they have a right on every copy and how it is used. This would be true (in the legal sense) since Queen Anne's day ... assuming software was made back then.
2) As such, Apple can put their own terms and conditions on the sale of the software. They can give it away for free (a la BSD, Linux). They can sell it with a service package (Red Hat, etc). They can sell it to any and all who sign a contract (MicroSoft) or any select group. Or they can be the only ones to sell it, which is what they do, on conditions and terms they set, which they do.
3) OS X is available for purchase seperately from their hardware.
4) If you have a spare box and want to purchase OS X and try to install it there so you can try it out, Apple won't come after you. Remember, Jobs and Woz were hobby-ists, that's how the company was founded. And if you are buying OS X to try it out on old hardware, that's another copy they sold that they wouldn't have otherwise, and you probably wouldn't have bought an Apple machine anyway.
5) Just don't expect any support from Apple. If I tried to put fuel injectors from a Ford Focus into my VW Golf, and things go badly, tough. I can't sue VW nor Ford, nor can I expect much sympathy, because I was using the two products in ways they weren't intended.
6) If I then try to re-sell that machine with OS X, then I'm in violation of the terms of agreement of the sale of OS X to me. Remember, Apple retains the right to that copy (just as MS would with a Windows install and Torvalds would with Linux). Apple has chosen not to allow such resale, and for a good reason. The clone program of the 90s were nearly the coup de grace for the company.
7) Psystar violated the point in 6). And they continued to do so after a desist order.
I don't care either way, but I do find watching the advertising on TV for MS and Apple interesting.
In most MS adverts it's all about showing what you can do with the software (albeit that MS don't make the underlying hardware).
With Apple, despite them making both hardware and software... it's all about "oooh look how thin I am" or "ahhh look how light I am" i.e. nothing about how their software is functionally useful but all about the shallow aesthetics.
Hence - I'm a Linux man :-)
VW would be miffed if you bought their engines and put them in some non-VW car?
What, you mean like all the dozens of times other manufacturers have bought VW engines and put them in their cars? I used to own a Chrysler car with a VW engine in it. Made that way at the factory.
If you want to buy engines from VW, I don't suppose they care if you use them to power sewage pumps, as long as you're paying for them.
The bottom line is that OS X is the lever that Apple uses to charge $2600 for a machine that they can probably build for $500. I am currently building a machine that's fully OS X compatible and has the same specs as Apple's $2000+ Pro - and the parts are costing me about $560. I bought very good components all across the board too. I'm sure Apple could get better prices than I can.
They need to keep OS X tied to only their hardware, because otherwise they can't compete in the hardware business.
If I want to buy OS X and install it on my hardware, with the understanding that I get ZERO support from Apple, why shouldn't I be able to?
By raving angry loony Posted Monday 28th September 2009 20:01 GMT
I'm still curious as to who is funding Psystar.
.
Well, it is pretty clear who's dunnit - the Chinese.
Think. If I were a chinese manufacturer, who is possibly treated like sh1t by the Big Fruit, I'd do just about everything to get my goods delivered to the market on my own terms. Why not start in Florida? No old Bohston there, no new Siliconians, no Redmondites, no Dell hatters, no IBM suits. Just a clean slate, tabula rasa.
You jut need to chose a psychic, err, "lucky psystar" as the name, throw out "lucky", clobber together a website (all your bases, etc.), and off it goes.
It's a shame though that they do not ship Linux and/or BSD pre-installed, along with the fruity mess.
BTW: I strongly suspect the Psystar hardware is of decent, probably even high quality. Any other than that would be suicidal.
Go, Psystar, go!
.
"If I want to buy OS X and install it on my hardware, with the understanding that I get ZERO support from Apple, why shouldn't I be able to?"
Apple aren't stopping you doing this. Go ahead. They don't care.
What they DO care about (and what many posters here don't seem to get) is selling non-Apple hardware with OS X installed on it (or bundled with it). That's a big no-no.
"Apple aren't stopping you doing this. Go ahead. They don't care"
Well they do care a bit. I can't buy a copy of OSX and expect my PC to boot from the install disc and merrily install. Why? Because you have to hack around it to convince it that it doesn't require the EFI platform - most people will just get a copy of OSX86 and not pay Apple, sorta shooting themselves in the foot really? And probably the reason that every hack that's been written to date has been patched by Apple. Not to mention that Apple complained when Wired Magazine gave a video instruction on how to install OSX and got them to remove the vid.
This tends to make me think that they do care.
Looking at the Snow Leopard box on my desk, it says "Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreements included in this package". It then has a License agreement when you install it, with a button that says "Accept" or something similair.
As far as I can see, Apple has the right to put whatever restrictions they want on the use of the software, as long as you can return it if you don't agree. They stated on the box, that using the software requires acceptance of their terms in the software agreements, so as an intelligent customer you accept that on purchasing it, with the priviso that you're free to return it if you find their conditions unnaceptable. It's not your software to do what you want with, since you've already agreed that you'll check the EULA before install.
So Apple has the rights to set whatever contract they want on your use of the media, as long as they don't change the terms on you halfway through, which they don't. You have the right to deal with it, or not use it.
What is the point of running OSX on a non Apple PC? The limited hardware compatibility and headaches associated with getting it running on non Apple hardware makes it totally senseless? I don't see the point. The OS is designed to run on hardware that is designed and tested to run on it (Apple Hardware), and as Apple own the product patents, it's their legal right . So who is Psystar to question how some other company's product should be sold, used, or made available (a product they do not own in whole or part, AT ALL)? As has been stated, who is really behind Psystar and therefore challenging Apple by violating a EULA that at least on the surface, appears to be designed to reduce support headaches for Apple?
"It's a shame though that they do not ship Linux and/or BSD pre-installed, along with the fruity mess."
They do. You can get, factory-installed, your choice of any 2 of the following: OS X, Vista, Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, CentOS or Ubuntu Server. You just have to buy an additional hard drive (since Apple restricts BootCamp to Apple-branded machines):
http://store.psystar.com/dualboot.html
And then, if you feel like it, you can plunk FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or whatever your heart desires, onto the machine.
""If I want to buy OS X and install it on my hardware, with the understanding that I get ZERO support from Apple, why shouldn't I be able to?"
Apple aren't stopping you doing this. Go ahead. They don't care."
They absolutely do care. It's specifically forbidden in the EULA. I would actually be willing to buy a copy of OS X to install, but I have friends who work for Apple and they've made it clear to me that the folks at Apple do NOT like this and consider it illegal.
I'm sure that they won't come after me or anything, but honestly, I have an OS that does what I want, if Apple doesn't want me as a cheerleader, screw 'em. I'll just keep recommending PCs. The only reason I was thinking about it is that I have friends with Macs, and I'd like to be able to help them, but if Apple doesn't want me running OS X without spending $1000 on hardware I don't need, I'll just tell my friends "Sorry, I don't know anything about OS X. You'll have to find someone else."
There aren't any headaches with getting OSX to run on a non-Mac box, once the hardware restrictions Apple built into the installer are bypassed. OSX runs fine and fast on non-Mac hardware. That's a big part of Apple's issue with it, as has been stated by others here: Once it becomes common knowledge that Apple hardware isn't God's gift to computers, they lose their Big Money, and become just another OS/iPod/iPhone vendor.
And, weirdly, I do agree that Apple deserves the right to sell their product only in the way they intended for it to be sold ... on Mac hardware. I think Psystar and the Hackintosh enablers (thanks for the distros, guys!) are actually hurting themselves by helping people who couldn't normally afford a Mac to experience the OS. As more people get exposed to it, demand for it increases, simply because it is different from Windows if nothing else (BeOS, NeXT and others fall into this camp, too, but without Apple's PR), and while the price point is still a problem for the vast majority of The Great Unwashed, jailbreaking the installer leads to more people wanting OSX, and whining about Apple's elitist distribution philosophy. If there were no jailbroken OSX distros floating around, and no Psystar, Mac users would float back down to the sub 5% market share that they have traditionally held, and we would hear no more about their little white glove tea parties and polo matches.
I have a paid for copy of OSX on my shelf and same running on my cheap Fujitsu laptop (which bench marks higher than a 3 x cost MacBook Pro BTW!)
I couldn't give a flying fuck what Apple says in their EULA they have no legal right to tell me how I can and can't use a product which I have bought and paid for.
Go Psystar!
"Apple has a copyright on OS X and its software. In other words, they have a right on every copy and how it is used."
This is not strictly correct. Copyright only covers the right of others to modify, distribute, and produce copies of a work. Copyright does not allow any control over the use of a work and I believe that extends to resale (hence ability to sell used books, software, etc. without asking permission). This is why Apple, Microsoft, etc. generally bring in an additional license agreement to control the usage of the product once in the purchaser's hands (EULA).
In this case, Apple is not suing Psystar for copyright violation (they have legally obtained all copies they are distributing), but for violating the EULA by misapplication of the software. I believe Apple was earlier making some noise about attacking them with a DMCA violation for reverse engineering the EFI code, but I don't think that's going to court.
I think the legal status of EULAs is murky (possibly because the user is badgered into accepting it after having given worst-buy their money?), but I'd be happy to be corrected by someone who knows better.
The Nintendo comment: I don't think any KIRF company could manufacture a Nintendo DS or Wii clone and sell at a profit. Legal issues notwithstanding, the sheer volume of sales required to be in the black would preclude any gains - so it's pretty much a non-issue.
The VW engine comment: Actually, you CAN buy VW engines and install them in a car of your own making. VW will happily sell them to you, individually or in volume. It's a physical product and not a software thingy that's easy/free (as in without cost, not freedom) to duplicate, so that's another bad example. Anyway you can always buy an R8, dismantle the engine and put it in your beercratemobile.
Back in the day Apple did make proprietary hardware to go with their proprietary software, so it was not much of an issue. But they HAD to convert to the PC side or face extinction, since the competition was much cheaper and quite faster. Now they make PC's - nice ones, but still. Today they have to fight for their former "exclusive" image, if nothing else. Actually, I wouldn't mind having the choice of buying a Thinkpad factory-installed with OSX. Why not? Windows 7 is quite good on its own, but competition is also good - especially since I wouldn't be the one doing the competing, just reaping the benefits..
IMHO the Psystar folk are doomed to fail - but I can't help feeling sympathetically amused at their antics.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
