It's official: the Florida-based Hackingtosher that Apple's legal team has been hacking at for over a year has finally thrown in the towel. "We respect the robe," Psystar lawyer Eugene Action told Dow Jones Newswires, referring presumably to US District Court Judge William Alsup, who issued a ruling earlier this week that …
"Psystar is not doing anything illegal at that point.
what am i missing ..."
What you're missing is apparently either the ability to read or the ability to comprehend what you've read. The judge's decision is quite simple and clear (and even written in reasonably readable form, compared to many decisions). Groklaw has covered the entire thing.
Of COURSE it's illegal. Would you please stop with the silly arguments that have already been shot down?
not a monopoly.
A company has the right to offer its products and services on its own terms and if you don't like it you can take your business elsewhere.
Sometimes a company gains control over its market to the point that the free market system simply doesn't work and government regulators have to step it to maintain a healthy competitive business environment.
Apple isn't Microsoft. It simply doesn't have that level of control in any of its markets.
So its neither illegal or unethical for Apple limit their software to their hardware.
Forget Psystar and look at Apple and the legal decision - BAD in the extreme...
Consider: (using a previously stated analogy), if you bought Kellogg’s Corn Flakes but Kellogg’s came along and told you you could only eat them out of a Kellogg’s branded bowl..?
What Apple have done here is effectively exempted their product from a FUNDAMENTAL piece of consumer law which RIGHTLY states that once you've sold a product you can't try to dictate, define or limit what the consumer can do with it.
Were not talking about breaching copyright / patent or other intellectual property issues here, just basic use and the right to bloody well do what you want to with the stuff you buy, (and incidentally the right to re-sell it).
Look at auto-custom outfits like Kernic - what do you think would happen if Ferrari tried to stop Kernic from customising and re-selling their cars? How would you feel if you put a porcher engine into a VW chassis and when you tried to sell the monster Porcher went to court to try and stop you, basically winning the right to say that their engines can ONLY be installed in THEIR cars by THEM..?
There's a lot of deflection going on here saying Apple don't stop people from making hackintoshes, they only go after re-sellers, and also a lot of (justified) criticism of Psystar as a company but the fact is that Apples EULA ABSOLUTELY prohibits ANYONDE from installing OSX on alternate hardware and while Apple might only bother to go after re-sellers in court, this legal action has (quite disgracefully) validated their EULA and enshrined this unique dictatorial right in law. THIS has given Apple a monopoly; it has allowed them to reach out beyond the sales counter into consumer's homes and peoples businesses with unprecedented and indefensible power to control what we do with the stuff they sell.
Personally I think the 'conspiracy theories' may just have merit here as this case was SO badly fought and defended by Psystar; either they were / are complete fucking idiots, or they never really wanted to win in the first place because this case has MASSIVELY secured Apples position by plugging what they undoubtedly saw as a potential hull breach in their business model; their potentially illegal and unconstitutional EULA...
I personally don't think we've heard the last of this, while Psystar may be on their last dying breath I strongly suspect that if someone follows the money trail they'll find that the American legal system has been well and truly played by Apple, and I personally don't want a world where creeps like Jobs can basically make the law up as they go along to suite their own exclusive interests and fuck everybody else and their basic rights.
You don't 'buy' MacOS...
...you license it. That licence is only valid for Apple hardware. You can do what you like with the hardware, because that's the thing you've bought.
If you search for previous Psystar related articles you will see that this point has been discussed to the nth degree. At no point have Psystar gone to court about the EULA. The legality or otherwise of the EULA has not been established, and the degree to which it is legal varies greatly depending on the country you make your purchase in.
If you're going to wade in with an 'Apple are the bad guys' post then at least research the prior discussions and add something new...
Then don't bloody buy it
If you don't like the EULA, don't bloody buy the product. Seems simple.
Oh, you want the product, but don't like the restrictions? Cool. Change the law.
Oh, that's not gonna happen? Sucks to be you...
I haven't purchased a Sony product for _years_ (and that includes music or movies from Sony-owned sources) because I don't like certain aspects of Sony's behaviour. If enough people did that, perhaps Sony would change its ways. I'm not holding my breath waiting.
Your problem is that you don't like some things that Apple does... but just as Sony doesn't care about my opinion, Apple doesn't care about yours. And you simply can't get enough other people to care enough about your opinion to make Apple care. In this particular case, Apple is completely in the right according to the law, and has enough (more than enough) support from the public (expressed in cash flowing their way) that they simply don't give a damn about your opinion. If you want things to change you have to:
1 change the law
2 cut off the money supply
or 3 both
As things stand you're not going to be able to do any of that. Sucks to be you.
"Consider: (using a previously stated analogy), if you bought Kellogg’s Corn Flakes but Kellogg’s came along and told you you could only eat them out of a Kellogg’s branded bowl..?
What Apple have done here is effectively exempted their product from a FUNDAMENTAL piece of consumer law which RIGHTLY states that once you've sold a product you can't try to dictate, define or limit what the consumer can do with it."
Incorrect, and therefore invalidating your Kellog's analogy. OS X is not sold as a separate product. It is an integral part of an Apple Mac computer. You're not allowed to install OS X on a non-Apple computer, in the same way that you're not allowed to run the PS3 OS on non-Sony consoles, or the same way that you're not allowed to run Tom Tom GPS software on non-Tom Tom hardware (except where they've specifically allowed it, eg mobile phones). Try installing Android on a WinMo phone, or Symbian on an Android phone...and selling it.
"How would you feel if you put a porcher engine into a VW chassis and when you tried to sell the monster Porcher went to court to try and stop you, basically winning the right to say that their engines can ONLY be installed in THEIR cars by THEM..?"
It's Porsche, not Porcher. If Porsche didn't want you to do that, they wouldn't sell you any engines, and you'd have to buy complete new Porsches to get your engines, which wouldn't make much economic sense. Companies that do that sort of thing generally get the blessing of the other car companies involved before going ahead. In the same way that Porsche engines are not sold to 3rd parties, Apple doesn't sell OS X to 3rd parties. It only provides upgrades to existing Mac owners. OS X is no more a separate product that can be used elsewhere than the case of an iMac is a separate product that can be used elsewhere.
I can't beileve the sheer volume of flawed arguments and unmitigated bollocks being posted in this thead by all you Apple fanbois.
It really must be true that your brains just aren't connected up like the 'normal' brains of most 'ordinary' folks for you all to be able to spout such utter arse gravy and believe it so thoroughly.
"What Apple have done here is effectively exempted their product from a FUNDAMENTAL piece of consumer law which RIGHTLY states that once you've sold a product you can't try to dictate, define or limit what the consumer can do with it."
Not really. Software is covered by both copyright law and the license (EULA) in which you can write pretty much anything you like. It is not a simple 'product'.
Get over it that the way all software is sold
thing is you don't own the software you rent the software. I remember having the same argument against the software providers for our back office system, and all the systems we have used in the last 20 years, the agreement is ALWAYS you are paying for a software licence NOT the software. so in the last 3 systems they provide the hardware and the software together.
I don't like it but thats the way it is, if you don't agree don't sign up.
1) your analogy is flawed as both of those are seperate retail items. A correct analogy is that Microsoft does not allow the reinstall of their OEM licences on new hardware, and then apply the retail Win7 Ultimate upgrade to it, without paying full price for heir OS. Microsoft, being a near monopoly, and subject to numerous cases of governmnet control, is doing the EXACT SAME THING you say Apple is doing ilelgally. Your bought the hardware, but only LICENSE the OS that came with it. Apple is simply saying you can not install an upgrade of their OS on non-apple hardware as the OEM license that came with the Mac is non-transferable. Since they CHOOSE not to sell the full license seperately, which is their legally protected choice and to which anticompetitive regulation does not apply, what Psystar did was in full violation of Apple's EULA and license terms, and doing so as a commercial entity for profit is blantantly against numerous federal stauates that have now been upheld, clearly indicating which side the law is on.
Apple is NOT telling you what you can and can't use the MACHINE for, they're telling you the OS is non-transferable. That's all. They have every legal right to protect that, and Psystar, by distributing their systems with "upgrade" copies of OS X is in full violation of copywrite by assisting a purchaser with overriding the EULA and providing tools or instructions that permit installing an upgrade ontop of a non-licensed machine laching a pre-existing EOM license.
Engines and components are not licensed, and are subject to first sale doctrine. The only conditions Porche can put on preventing the sale are simply to void the waranty on the machine. However, the opposite, taking a Honda, putting a remanufactured Porche Moter in it, decaling it up, and selling it AS a Porche, and telling buyters it's supported at least in some level by Porche, you bet your ass Porche would have the dealer in court. MANY shops have been accused, tried, and shut down for selling cars that "look like" others, being sold as counterfeit. That is what Psystar did.
Apple does not have the power to contro what you di with stuff they sell, only with what the DO NOT SELL, namely, the OEM license. This has been FULLY supproted by the courts numerous times in numerous businesses. There is "License" and "purchase", and both have been defended successfully at the supreme court level. You can in fact resel a "liceense" if it was a RETAIL license (recent ruling against AutoDesk for example) however, in that case they tried to prevent the resale when the license only indicated internally (and not on packaging) that is was non-transferable. Apple is clear in their OEM language, and in the outer packing for retail upgrades to that OEM license, that apple branded Mac computer is required.
I can't deny your claim that the folks at Psystar, and their previous legal defense, are complete fucking morons, but please don't lead folks to believe apple may have been behind that... That's just insane.
You're also right, we have not heard the end of this. the judge specifically indicated Rebel EFI should not be distributed, though he did not explicity order the destruction of that product. He gave Apple the easy ability to simply request that be reintroducted if abused, and requires no retrial for additional sanctions or orders in this case to be released. Apple simply need complain and provide evidence Psystar has marketed ANY technology, software, or even simple instructions that lead someone to bypass Apple's fully vetted and approved license terms, or to inatll any unlicenced or unapproved apple software on non-apple hardware. This is not over, but I think some folks from Psystar abe about to see a very quick contempt of court ruling, have Rebel EFI taken and destroyed, and likely will see additional SEVERE penaties (outlined in the ruling already as a warning), and will also likely see not only jail time, but finally will see their investors revealed, rebuked, and possibly themselves improsoned if they had anything to do with bypassing the judges orders.
If I ever get to write a EULA, I'm going to add some really amusing stuff in there. So many think that they create new laws, at least from the comments here, that I can get them to hand over 10% of their salary for the rest of their life (I'm not THAT greedy) if they install my software.
Who reads the EULA anyway?