Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

[Schmacintosh]

[Zaap]

These arguments crack me up.

 

Great, so I don't own OSX. I never thought I did.

 

I'm more than happy to run it on the machine of my choosing though. Yup, Apple owns OSX. I don't. No problem. Now I'm running a copy of somehthing I don't own, never wanted to own, never thought I owned, don't care that I don't own- on something I DO own- my own hardware.

 

Don't like it? Apple doesn't like it? Apple fanbois don't like it?

 

Tough shiiiiite.

[slacker25]

@Zaap ... i would be mildly considered an apple fanboy ... i dont care and once more i really dont think apple does but your POV to it is better for you are expressing that you dotn care if its illegal.

 

 

Apple May not care about a group of people just doing it cause they can ... but you cant blame them for not wanting someone else making $$ off what wasnt intended to work that way to begin with.

 

ill like my mac's far more then ever will a hack .. but im entitled to that POV .. its the AAAAAAWWWWWWWW i dont wanna be told im doing something illegal.... that got me started on this thread.

 

 

Well i m sorry but if you arre doing something illegal .. either stop doing it or tough {censored}.

[Zaap]

I don't give a good {censored} if someone thinks installing an OS is "illegal" or not. Apple fanbois love to act like Apple is some grand legislative authority, and that because they make a proclaimation about who can and can't do what with their product, that it's some supreme 'law of the land'.

 

I don't give a good {censored} what Apple wants people to believe is 'illegal' or not. I could march down to the local police station, city hall, the state capitol, or the federal capitol and shout from the rooftops "I'm installing OSX on non-Apple hardware!!!" and no one, I repeat NO ONE would give a good {censored} other than that I'd be disturbing the peace. I'd be escorted out and told to stop shouting, but no one would arrest me for my OHHHHHHH NOOOO ILLEGAL deed.

 

If I choose to take my 'licenced' copy of OSX and use it as a 'licenced' coaster for my drink- I will. If I choose to take it, pop it into the DVD drive of non-Apple hardware, and install it onto my non-Apple hardware, I will. Like I said, I never for one second thought that meant I OWN OSX- I'm not doing one damn thing to anyone's "ownership" of OSX. I'm doing something to MY hardware,that I do own- putting an OS of my choice on it. Whiners can shout "illegal" all they want. Go ahead, have at it. It's lame, and no one (other than Apple fanbois and fanatics) gives a flying rip.

[slacker25]

@Zaap .. now your going over board its not about weather you care that its illegal or not ... but rather is it ilegal or not..... and to point you out on a few flaws in the system they would care if it was to their benefit .... and if your not an apple fanboy then why are you using OSX. And do you think OSX made it where its at on an open platform like linux ... ummm no

[Zaap]

@Zaap .. now your going over board its not about weather you care that its illegal or not ... but rather is it ilegal or not..... and to point you out on a few flaws in the system they would care if it was to their benefit .... and if your not an apple fanboy then why are you using OSX. And do you think OSX made it where its at on an open platform like linux ... ummm no

Slacker, quote for me a single law making my choice of OS on my own hardware "illegal". I'm talking about an actual, on the books, enforceable law. Please show me, and cite it.

[franciz]

If Psystar wins then this site wins!!! Kudos!

[slacker25]

@Zaap

 

 

Here is one.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060808-7447.html

 

 

And just cause such a jerk here is two

http://www.svmedialaw.com/ecommerce-eula-u...acker-case.html

[Maxintosh]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060808-7447.html

And just cause such a jerk here is two

http://www.svmedialaw.com/ecommerce-eula-u...acker-case.html

Good to see the courts upholding these EULA's and throwing these loosers in jail to think a little longer about what they did

[Zaap]

@Zaap

 

 

Here is one.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060808-7447.html

 

That's a case involving a commercial use of a product, involving having enough valid licences on all the machines its used on, and it's an ownership issue, not a hardware issue. Installing an OS on my home machine isn't a commercial use, and I have a valid licence from the copies of OSX I bought, and I'm not claiming I "own" the software, and therefore can install the same copy on 100 machines if I want.

 

And such blazing irony- it's a law enforcement agency! Shows how the LA Sherriffs dept is really going after people for installing OS's! In a strange way, you pretty much enforced part of my point- law enforcement couldn't care less about people installing OS's on hardware they own, and with good reason-there's no law against it. An EULA with Apple is merely an agreement to use the software as they suggest- OR- you don't get the benefit of any support from them. They can't be held accountable for their OS installed on machines they don't support. That's it. It's now a LAW, and there's nothing illegal about installing the OS without their approval or support.

 

You'd have a point if there is a commercial use involved, and people weren't buying the proper licences per machine, but what you quoted was a standard lack of enough licences per use, nothing to do with what hardware was involved.

 

The other case, involves an organization reverse engineering someone's product and using it in a way that the court found unfair. That might apply to someone making a commercial product out of a distro of OSX, but that's not the case with Psystar which uses the retail. Again, apples and oranges.

 

So nice effort, but it fails the ACTUAL, ENFORCEABLE law test.

 

And talk about jerks- you Apple fanboi pricks act like bigger jerks than the RIAA, you just don't have any power. Part of the enjoyment of the Hackintosh crowd is thumbing our nose at you busybody twits every bit as much as some people enjoy smacking down the RIAA!

[jgrimes80]

That's a case involving a commercial use of a product, involving having enough valid licences on all the machines its used on, and it's an ownership issue, not a hardware issue. Installing an OS on my home machine isn't a commercial use, and I have a valid licence from the copies of OSX I bought, and I'm not claiming I "own" the software, and therefore can install the same copy on 100 machines if I want.

 

And such blazing irony- it's a law enforcement agency! Shows how the LA Sherriffs dept is really going after people for installing OS's! In a strange way, you pretty much enforced part of my point- law enforcement couldn't care less about people installing OS's on hardware they own, and with good reason-there's no law against it. An EULA with Apple is merely an agreement to use the software as they suggest- OR- you don't get the benefit of any support from them. They can't be held accountable for their OS installed on machines they don't support. That's it. It's now a LAW, and there's nothing illegal about installing the OS without their approval or support.

 

You'd have a point if there is a commercial use involved, and people weren't buying the proper licences per machine, but what you quoted was a standard lack of enough licences per use, nothing to do with what hardware was involved.

 

The other case, involves an organization reverse engineering someone's product and using it in a way that the court found unfair. That might apply to someone making a commercial product out of a distro of OSX, but that's not the case with Psystar which uses the retail. Again, apples and oranges.

 

So nice effort, but it fails the ACTUAL, ENFORCEABLE law test.

 

And talk about jerks- you Apple fanboi pricks act like bigger jerks than the RIAA, you just don't have any power. Part of the enjoyment of the Hackintosh crowd is thumbing our nose at you busybody twits every bit as much as some people enjoy smacking down the RIAA!

 

Zaap, I'm going to have to agree with you here for a moment but, don't get excited. Ultimately, it's not whether installing OSX on alternate hardware is "illegal"... it's whether installing OSX on alternate hardware is a breach of Terms of Use.

 

I don't think anyone would really go to jail (unless a court order ends up getting violated), but an End User who supposedly agrees to the Terms of Use has entered a legally recognized contract. Breaching of the aforementioned contract exposes the End User to liability. Equally, a Terms of Use containing items that violates consumer rights (eg. Lemon Laws) can be voided upon suit.

 

I guess my point is, your right. An EULA violation isn't necessarily a criminalized ordeal. However, just because it's not illegal, doesn't mean there are no risks. If Apple wanted to be a jerk, they could sue, get a judgment and garnish wages. But obviously, they focus on bigger fish... one's with wages worth garnishing

[slacker25]

@Zaap was not to point out any more then what you previous post requested ... the EULA is LAW Binding ... this just proves it and also EULA does not care weather you are a home user or corp just cause they have not gotten after home users does not mean they wont once the corps that are costing them more money are outta the way

 

@jgrimes80 ... right no one would go to jail unless the court orders it or the courts decision to say this stops now is not met.

[Zaap]

Zaap, I'm going to have to agree with you here for a moment but, don't get excited. Ultimately, it's not whether installing OSX on alternate hardware is "illegal"... it's whether installing OSX on alternate hardware is a breach of Terms of Use.

Right- that's why I take issue with anyone blathering about it being 'illegal'. People toss that term around without the slightest clue what it actually means.

 

I don't think anyone would really go to jail

That would be a felony, for which there would have to be specific law. There is of course, no such thing.

 

 

I guess my point is, your right. An EULA violation isn't necessarily a criminalized ordeal.

Of course it isn't. It would be silly for it to be- it would mean that corporations, not legislative bodies, dictate the judicial system.

 

Let me ask you this- if Adobe made a deal, and then decided to put in their EULA: "You can only install Adobe Photoshop on Dell branded hardware" that it would really mean they could sue you (and more laughably, because it'd be illegal) for installing it on a Compaq or a Gateway? Come on. It would merely mean that unless you follow their EULA and obey their little Dell-only edict, you waive your ability to go to them for product support on your Compaq because you've voilated their corporate edict. But that's ALL it is. It's not the law of the land, and there's no court they could sue you in for voilating their desire to dictate that you use a certain brand of hardware.

 

People act like a company can dictate anything in an EULA, and it becomes law. "You must stand on your head while installing this! So dictates we, the all mighty corporation."

 

I agree wholeheartedly that if you don't follow their EULA terms about hardware, then you don't get the benefit of their having to support the product, but that's about as far as it goes. Violating a company's license agreement by installing multiple copies that you don't have individual licenses for, is an entirely different matter.

 

However, just because it's not illegal, doesn't mean there are no risks. If Apple wanted to be a jerk, they could sue, get a judgment and garnish wages. But obviously, they focus on bigger fish... one's with wages worth garnishing

I agree with most of your post, but I really think it's a stretch to even imagine Apple could take anyone to court over installing their product for non-commercial use. They'd be laughed out of most any court. Heck, it's not even an open and shut case with them against Psystar as so many people thought it would be and that IS a commercial use. (Because ACTUAL LAW is a lot more complicated than waving your hands and yelling at people "It's illegal!!!")

[jgrimes80]

Let me ask you this- if Adobe made a deal, and then decided to put in their EULA: "You can only install Adobe Photoshop on Dell branded hardware" that it would really mean they could sue you (and more laughably, because it'd be illegal) for installing it on a Compaq or a Gateway? Come on. It would merely mean that unless you follow their EULA and obey their little Dell-only edict, you waive your ability to go to them for product support on your Compaq because you've voilated their corporate edict. But that's ALL it is. It's not the law of the land, and there's no court they could sue you in for voilating their desire to dictate that you use a certain brand of hardware.

 

Obviously, I'm not a lawyer... Although it would greatly restrict sales and make alternatives much more attractive, I don't think it's against the law to have exclusive licensing agreements. If Dell sat down and wrote it's own operating system, I don't see why they should be forced to license it for use on other computers.

 

They'd be laughed out of most any court.

 

Whether it could go to court is the question... and not many people with legitimate contracts are "laughed" out. However, I do think their public relations (PR) department would definitely have a field day... Not to mention political pressure for unethical enforcement of the EULA contract.

[slacker25]

@jgrimes80 ... unethical... no one here is worthy of deciding what un ethical

[spikegomez]

Even though what you said is true there's a big difference in this and the Apple/Psystar debate.

 

Windows Vista is NOT supported on the PPC architecture

PS3 Games are NOT supported on the Wii Console

 

OS X IS supported on the x86 architecture, but apple is only limiting the hardware to what THEY sell.

 

Honestly Psystar is guilty on the copyright issue. They sold copyrighted software on computers without the owners permission.

 

However, I would like to see how this whole thing plays out. It would be hilarious if Psystar won and Apple EULA was void.

 

That's great... nice post man!

[slacker25]

@MGJulius.... this woulld apply to the x86 arch if say apple was to say not pay royalties or some kinda contract to intel the owners of said arch ,,, giving them rights to use this arch in such a form. there is no tangible law saying that pc makers and parts makers have used this and paid their dues to intel so this means its their to say how it works .... its up to intel and mac to make a deal..... mac goes to intel " i wanna use your arch in this manner" Intel "lets make a deal" ...... no one else can say {censored} they down own that arch intel does

[jgrimes80]

@jgrimes80 ... unethical... no one here is worthy of deciding what un ethical

 

I didn't mean to imply that I (or anyone here) decides what's "ethical." I was merely referring to the consequence of a major corporation like Apple filing a suit against an individual for someone as minor as installing a paid-for license of OSX on the "wrong" hardware. However, I would imagine the public would definitely not respond well to Apple going on a campaign to nail everyone.

 

Kind of like the iPhone software... they locked phones that were altered through an update. I don't know about you, but there were several folks I knew who were extremely pissed. I couldn't imagine Apple having done someone to file suit against people for breaching the Terms of Use contract by using a different carrier.

 

Oh well.

[Guest cavallo]

Normally i think Apple, as originally an hardware company, paid to protect illegal use of its software on others than mac.

I think also Apple paid to sell at the same conditions a standaolne version of it.

I am not a lawyer but i think that this is the matter.

There are a lot of softwares on market, so i don't understand why a lot of mac users risks to have a low quality, cause adatped to pc, software.

We will have retail for mac and self pc but to a low very low quality, don't you think it is better that we have now?

This is the matter.

[slacker25]

@cavallo Nice! Avatar

[22HERTZ]

I think its ridiculous Apple will be in court defending something they design, make and sell exclusively and have every right to do as they wish.

 

I would love to see OSX released for the PC, and honestly I think they're fools for not jumping at a golden opportunity to do so with Vista leaving a sour taste in many mouths, but its no ones place to force them to do anything with their product.

[shaybc]

its not the question of forcing them (apple) to do something (like make OSX available on a PC platform), but it is more of a case to allow others to do what ever they wish (like sell the software installed on a PC without apple preventing it)!

 

i think it was a smart and souragiouse move from Psystat side, apple sude them for selling OSX installed on something "other then Mac", Apple mistake is to ask the court to collect all solled hackintosh from the clients, by that leaving Psystar with nothing to lose, (if the trial is lost then they gain nothing of the publisity, all increased sell will have to be collected and reimburse, if they won then Psystar should make the trial as loud as they can so sell will rise. hence the counter sue,

 

it is my opinion that if the "collect all solled Hackintosh..." demand wasnt on the table then the counter sue would not occure, also do know that as much as we are angree with Psystar they are still fighting for all of us (although its not their intention, they can't help it), if they win, then the whole OSX for MAC only will disappear and other sellers might arise, perhaps we will see dell, LG, and other manufacturers making OSX available on their hazrdware once it is legal to do so, also software and hardware companies might perfect the hackintosh procedure, and write OSX drivers for the PC platform etc.

 

it will be good for us that Psystar will win.

[Maxintosh]

I think its ridiculous Apple will be in court defending something they design, make and sell exclusively and have every right to do as they wish.

 

I would love to see OSX released for the PC, and honestly I think they're fools for not jumping at a golden opportunity to do so with Vista leaving a sour taste in many mouths, but its no ones place to force them to do anything with their product.

Well stated

[jaez]

Psystar releases Mac-compatible Blu-ray before Apple, but does anyone want it?

 

wonderful news...psystar moves ahead of Apple and adds Blu-Ray to its MAC clones. Will Apple ever add Blu-Ray? Will they feel the pressure now that competition has come to OSX? Maybe Apple will speed up its product roll out, and finally release timely hardware upgrades Windows users have been enjoying for years.

 

Beautiful New Psystar with Blu-Ray

 

The basic Psystar desktop PC with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard pre-installed is offered for $555. The Blu-ray burner is a $310 option, bringing the bottom line to $865...

 

Psystar fills Blu-ray gap on Macs

 

 

 

[slacker25]

maybe when hell freezes over seeing as how pystar wont sell their OSX machines by the time its all done