Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

[Maxintosh]

Sure the EULA is a contract. But a very weak contract.

No it's not. The international copyright treaty, Article 4, specifically equates computer programs with enforceable copyrighted literary works. Just because you are ignorant of the fact, doesn't make them weak.

[jaez]

No it's not. The international copyright treaty, Article 4, specifically equates computer programs with enforceable copyrighted literary works. Just because you are ignorant of the fact, doesn't make them weak.

 

Yes, I obey all copyrights. I don't sell other peoples works without compensating them.

 

But, I also insist on my rights too, I don't allow manufacturer's to decieve me into thinking that an OS must be tied to their hardware.

 

You find me one court case, just one, in the history of the computer, where a manufacturer won verses the "END USER", when that end user violated his EULA and put the operating system on a different machine.

 

I'm not talking about Psystar type "intermediate resellers" here, but the end user in this instance.

 

If you can cite me that one case, I'll remove OSX from my PC, and take the self put Apple label off the box.

 

But, I'm not following any other individual's misinterpretation of my legal rights.

 

Cheers.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

This topic is still floating around?

 

Psystar would be the last company in the world I would defend. They are a bunch of leeches.

 

They make a living off pre-packaging our community's hours upon hours of hard work, and send their customers to our community for support. Does the community get royalties? NO!

 

I'd rather pay 2x the asking price for an Apple computer than to give even a cent to the useless plugs at Psystar.

 

 

 

Furthermore, its Apple's OS. And the courts will rule in Apple's favor because this is a joke. Apple spent millions of dollars developing OS X today, no one is going to tell them that they "have" to allow OS X to run on any hardware but their own. AFAIC, as long as Apple doesn't go out of their way to annoy the OSX86 community with harder software/hardware locks, by all means Apple, NEVER license OS X to ANY hardware vendor.

 

Don't like it? Cry. Because that's all you can do.

[Maxintosh]

Yes, I obey all copyrights. I don't sell other peoples works without compensating them.

No you don't. You don't have to sell it to be ripping them off. Using it in a form expressly forbidden in the contract that you agreed to is not only underhanded, but ripping them off.

 

I also insist on my rights too

 

How does the statement "if you want to use this product do X. If you don't want to use this product do Y" violate any of your rights? You have complete choice in the matter!

 

I don't allow manufacturer's to decieve me

Do you even know what the word 'deceive' means? Is English your second language? They are completely upfront with their contract terms. How is that in any way deceitful?

 

You find me one court case, just one, in the history of the computer, where a manufacturer won verses the "END USER", when that end user violated his EULA

 

It happens ALL THE TIME!

 

Hughes V. AOL - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

Southwest Airlines v. Boardfirst - EULA Upheld and Enforced.




Feldman v. Google - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

Kanitz v. Rogers Cable Inc. - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

Bowers V. Baystate - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

ProCD V. Zeidenberg - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

Davidson & Associates V. Internet Gateway - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

"The court upheld the EULA and TOU as enforceable contracts, rejecting various arguments by defendant that a contract was not formed through the click-thru process. Even though the EULAs and TOU were not on the physical packaging for the PC game, the court found that the terms were disclosed before installation to the games and access to Battle.net were granted, and express assent was obtained through the click-thru process."

 

Take a clue from Clide, Psystar is a bunch of leeches. My apology to leeches.

[mmcnally]

You find me one court case, just one, in the history of the computer, where a manufacturer won verses the "END USER", when that end user violated his EULA and put the operating system on a different machine.

 

I'm not talking about Psystar type "intermediate resellers" here, but the end user in this instance.

 

If you can cite me that one case, I'll remove OSX from my PC, and take the self put Apple label off the box.

 

When did this go from Psystar to end user. If Apple was after the end users then everyone registered on this forum would be hearing from Apples lawyers.

[jaez]

When did this go from Psystar to end user. If Apple was after the end users then everyone registered on this forum would be hearing from Apples lawyers.

 

Because its related. Naturally, Psystar could just sell PCs and OSX independently and let the user install the thing himself. But, it comes back to whether the end user would be violating any law.

 

The thing is, if the end user isn't violating any law, then Psystar isn't "aiding and abeting" illegal activity etc...etc...

 

No you don't. You don't have to sell it to be ripping them off. Using it in a form expressly forbidden in the contract that you agreed to is not only underhanded, but ripping them off.

 

You forget, I paid for OSX. No ripping off done.

 

There's got to be "a material consequence" of contract forbidden actions in order for any such clauses to have merit.

 

What are these consequences? How does it hurt Apple?

 

 

 

 

 

How does the statement "if you want to use this product do X. If you don't want to use this product do Y" violate any of your rights? You have complete choice in the matter!

 

It doesn't violate my rights. Only an attempt to enforce these clauses when they contflict with my local laws violate my rights.

 

 

Do you even know what the word 'deceive' means? Is English your second language? They are completely upfront with their contract terms. How is that in any way deceitful?

 

Because they don't reveal to the consumers that the consumers local laws take presidence. And most consumers aren't law savvy. So, they'll think the EULA is above the law.

 

 

It happens ALL THE TIME!

 

Hughes V. AOL - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

Southwest Airlines v. Boardfirst - EULA Upheld and Enforced.




Feldman v. Google - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

Kanitz v. Rogers Cable Inc. - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

Bowers V. Baystate - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

ProCD V. Zeidenberg - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

Davidson & Associates V. Internet Gateway - EULA Upheld and Enforced.

 

"The court upheld the EULA and TOU as enforceable contracts, rejecting various arguments by defendant that a contract was not formed through the click-thru process. Even though the EULAs and TOU were not on the physical packaging for the PC game, the court found that the terms were disclosed before installation to the games and access to Battle.net were granted, and express assent was obtained through the click-thru process."

 

Take a clue from Clide, Psystar is a bunch of leeches. My apology to leeches.

 

None of these cases test the installation of an OPERATING SYSTEM on an alternative computer done by an END USER.

 

You still can't cite me a case, can you?

 

I know the EULA is a weak contract. It's enforceable when it does not conflict with the law. And when the EULA is in conflict with the consumer's law, the consumer wins.

 

So, cite me an OS on HARDWARE example.

 

Lots of companies created operating systems over the years.

 

There are HUNDREDS OF OPERATING SYSTEMS:

 

http://www.operating-system.org/betriebssy...sh/os-liste.htm

 

Surely, you can find "ONE" case among these where the end user violated the EULA and put the operating system on a different machine, was suied, and the manufacturer won?

 

There's got to be one example at least.

 

After all, you're so sure putting OSX on a PC is illegal, there must be a reference case that justifies your confidence in interpreting the law here.

 

Just one example. Not alot of other side shows to distract the reader, just stay with the point.

 

[Coloro]

Greetings to all the members of this community.

In my opinion, any mean of installing Mac OS on an non-Apple machine is not only illegal, but also illegitimate. Maybe Apple's OS could be today as a widespread OS as Windows is if they would have acted as Microsoft, creating an OS for open computer hardware, but they opted for a harder way to go.

Once it's said, I'll add that I'm currently using an illegal, illegitimate copy of Mac OS X on a PC from HP, previously running Vista -legally, legitimately.

After having used MS-DOS from 1983 to 1989, then every Windows flavour from 1990 to nowadays, I've just discovered the joyce of using Leopard thanks to a hackintosh version, actually a Kalyway's version.

So, what will be the immediate consequence for me? Just that I will indoubtedly buy a Mac as my next desktop computer.

Then, why not before?

In a nutshell, just because of a lack of knowledge.

Macs aren't popular machines in Spain for two reasons: its price -considered high despite its very good manufacturing quality- and the fact of having difficulties at the time of getting some friends' help when any troubles do appear because it's very hard to find a friend with a Mac... really a vicious circle. Yes, Apple has -sure- a very good customer service, but please remember that many daily little computer problems are better solved by a good and experienced friend or neighbor.

But the Internet and communities like this one at Insanelymac can easily change that picture, as any question has an answer when one knows how and where to look for it.

Maybe Apple knows that many people will opt for their products the same way I'll do; maybe that's one of the reasons for not blocking the ability to actually run Mac OS on non-Mac machines at the time being though they can, no doubt. A similar conduct was utilised by Microsoft for many years, before they began to put stones in the illegal users' shoes.

So, I can establish a difference between using a Hackintosh OS for some time -something like a "try before you buy"- and making money from others' efforts, as I think Psystar is doing now.

I hope not to be misunderstood, please be generous and take into account that English is not my primary language .

Regards,

 

Ricardo.

[mmcnally]

Has anyone else here taken the time to read Apples 23 page motion to dismiss Psystars counter claim.

 

It is actually an interesting read

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/images/app...iss_psystar.pdf

 

Apples lawyers have sure done there homework on this one.

[JBLanteigne]

Good post coloro but I disagree with many things.

 

Of course what psystar is doing right now is illegal.. for two reasons.

 

1- apple says that the licence is only good on apple machines.

2- the leopard version is OEM it should be sold with a machine.

 

However, I believe that apple should make their software available for all. it is ridiculous to pay twice the price (yes, it is twice the price of building your own machine, it's a fact) for hardware just to be able to run the operating system on it. The only reason why they don't want their os to be used on any machine is because it would be too appealing for everyone to buy a pc instead and put os x on it.. I mean.. apple doesn't make all their money with os x.. they mostly get it from overpriced hardware.

 

My suggestion is the following:

 

Leave the price of the apple hardware the same.

Raise the price of the os x license to like 500$

Allow os x to run on any machine.

 

So the user has to choose between apple computer vs pc + a 500$ licence. That way, the pc + leopard licence option is less attracting and apple can sell their outdated hardware and ridiculous price (have you seen the price of ddr2 ram in the mac pro.. it's hilarious)

 

People might complain about how pricey os x is.. but apple can choose to sell their stuff at any price they want, it's their choice. Buying it or not is your choice. If you want/need os x.. pay what its worth.

 

I wouldn't mind paying 1500$ for an apple computer if the hardware + the 500$ licence worth the total of 1500$

 

but selling overpriced stuff and making sure people are obligated to buy it, is simply disgusting.

[dies]

Raise the price of the os x license to like 500$

 

I'm sorry that doesn't make sense to me. Neither does it make sense to me when people say that Apple can't make money only on their OS and have to make it by bundling it with their way overpriced, often {censored} looking hardware.

 

If you just took a moment to think about it you would see that if Apple were to make their OS available to everyone they would easily make as much as MS, probably way more.

 

 

Let's put it this way. How much is Windows, typically about $200-$300 depending on version and if you just wait for the first price drop. And how long does that version of Windows live ? In the case of XP, we're talking about what? like a decade.

 

How much is OS X, let's say $125. And how long does that version live ? In most cases 1 year, maybe a year and a half.

 

 

Which is the more expensive OS ?

[jaez]

If you just took a moment to think about it you would see that if Apple were to make their OS available to everyone they would easily make as much as MS, probably way more.

 

They would make more than MS. Because OSX is based on UNIX, and there's a whole world of unix out there, combined with Apple Desktop OSX flavor, and Apples existing third party apps, they would capture "BOTH" the Desktop and the Workstation markets in one fell swoop. Everybody would switch to the OSX/UNIX system in just a few years, and Apple would be king on the desktop.

 

 

But, Apple still wants to be a small niche player.

[Coloro]

Good post coloro but I disagree with many things.

 

Of course what psystar is doing right now is illegal.. for two reasons.

 

1- apple says that the licence is only good on apple machines.

2- the leopard version is OEM it should be sold with a machine.

 

However, I believe that apple should make their software available for all. it is ridiculous to pay twice the price (yes, it is twice the price of building your own machine, it's a fact) for hardware just to be able to run the operating system on it. The only reason why they don't want their os to be used on any machine is because it would be too appealing for everyone to buy a pc instead and put os x on it.. I mean.. apple doesn't make all their money with os x.. they mostly get it from overpriced hardware.

 

My suggestion is the following:

 

Leave the price of the apple hardware the same.

Raise the price of the os x license to like 500$

Allow os x to run on any machine.

 

So the user has to choose between apple computer vs pc + a 500$ licence. That way, the pc + leopard licence option is less attracting and apple can sell their outdated hardware and ridiculous price (have you seen the price of ddr2 ram in the mac pro.. it's hilarious)

 

People might complain about how pricey os x is.. but apple can choose to sell their stuff at any price they want, it's their choice. Buying it or not is your choice. If you want/need os x.. pay what its worth.

 

I wouldn't mind paying 1500$ for an apple computer if the hardware + the 500$ licence worth the total of 1500$

 

but selling overpriced stuff and making sure people are obligated to buy it, is simply disgusting.

I agree, Apple should sell their Mac OS capable of running on a PC as Microsoft does, but they simply have the right for not to do so. Maybe they should also made iPhone software available to other companies, just as Symbian do, for instance. But they have the right to refuse it. Because they're the creators of hard/soft tandems designed to work aside in an exclusive way.

Apple could low their hardware prices, of course, and I'm sure their bank accounts wouldn't get ruined.

Anyway, in Spain you already have to pay near $500 for Windows Vista Ultimate: €349. And Vista Ultimate doesn't resist any comparative with Leopard.

In Spain, a 2.8 GHz Core 2 duo, 2 Gb RAM, 24" screen iMac actually costs €1424 (near $2000), but it's not a lot more than the cost of a similarly powerful Hewlett Packard PC running Vista Home Edition when you add a TFT screen and some other hardware an iMac already wears just out of the box.

Please take into account that Vista's hardware requirements are considerably higher than Leopard's. My PC (HP m7780.es, a 2.13 GHz Core 2 duo, 2 Gb RAM PC) is running programs on Leopard considerably faster than it was running programs on Vista Home Premium, and needing much less hard disk space.

Regards,

 

Ricardo

[Maxintosh]

You forget, I paid for OSX. No ripping off done.

NO you don't. If you had read the contract then you would know that Apple maintains ownership of OS X at all times. What you paid for was a licence that allows you to use it. I guess the best way to explain it to you is that it's like leasing a car. The car does not belong to you. It belongs to the dealership. They are leasing it to you to use. There is a major difference between owning something, and owning a license to use something. You have not learned this yet. When you own the license you have agreed to certain terms and conditions. You own a plastic disc and a license. You don't own the operating system itself. Apple owns OS X. What you own is the right to use it under certain specific conditions (EULA). I hope that puts this matter to rest

 

How does it hurt Apple?

Because they lose money when you do it. Did you ever ask yourself why Apple only charges 80-90 bucks for its OS when MS charges 300-400? It's because the balance of the money that they recoup comes from the sale of the hardware. If psystar were to win this case I GUARANTEE you that the next version of OS X will be at least DOUBLE what it cost now. In business, there is no free lunch.

 

It doesn't violate my rights.

Thank you.

 

Because they don't reveal to the consumers that the consumers local laws take presidence.

LOL They are a computer company, not a legal firm It is NOT their job teach every consumer the law.

 

However it IS their job to legally protect their own products

 

None of these cases test the installation of an OPERATING SYSTEM on an alternative computer done by an END USER.

Red herring. All EULA's fall under the same heading. As long as it doesn't conflict with any other law, then it is binding!

[solaar]

If you just took a moment to think about it you would see that if Apple were to make their OS available to everyone they would easily make as much as MS, probably way more.

Let's put it this way. How much is Windows, typically about $200-$300 depending on version and if you just wait for the first price drop. And how long does that version of Windows live ? In the case of XP, we're talking about what? like a decade.

 

How much is OS X, let's say $125. And how long does that version live ? In most cases 1 year, maybe a year and a half.

Which is the more expensive OS ?

In an ideal world... maybe. Reality looks quite different though. You have to include the time you have to spend on installing, optimising, maintaining, troubleshooting, cleaning, keeping it healthy, reinstalling etc... with Windows. From that point of view Windows has been by far the most expensive OS I ever had running on my hardware.

[dies]

In an ideal world... maybe. Reality looks quite different though. You have to include the time you have to spend on installing, optimising, maintaining, troubleshooting, cleaning, keeping it healthy, reinstalling etc... with Windows. From that point of view Windows has been by far the most expensive OS I ever had running on my hardware.

 

a.) That's not really what I was getting at or what the post was about.

 

b.) Please don't try to tell me that OS X requires no maintenance and that it's never necessary to re-install it.

 

 

How you choose to maintain an OS, yes every OS needs to be maintained to some extent, is up to you, so your experience is unique. Things are only as hard as you make them.

 

For me it's easy, I just made a copy of a working, registered XP install and if I ever need to which is very, very rare BTW, I can just copy and paste it from the second drive to the first and presto, fresh ready to go install.

[slacker25]

@ CLiDE FTW!!1

i dont think they care about this community much as long as they dont take sales from them which pystar is other then that i think this community when taken as a hobby or just special non profit interest its made more apple fans then anything else this could by itself have made more money for them by turnig some people onto buying mac.

 

@ jaez

you did ripp it when yuou modded it to work pn your {censored} box.....the right ot used said purchase is that if it stays in tackt the way apple intended it to be used

 

and if you are expecting apple to read you your miranda rights when ever you purchase your software ... Grow up and go read a book

[Maxintosh]

Please don't try to tell me that OS X requires no maintenance

Define "maintenance". If you're referring to common software 'updates' then please tell us what is wrong with having them.

 

That however is totally different then the constant patching, tweaking and defraging of windows.

 

...and that it's never necessary to re-install it.

I don't know about anyone else but we bought our Mac around 3 years ago and it came with Tiger. We NEVER had any issues or problems with Tiger and we NEVER had to reinstall it - ever! When Leopard came along we naturally switched to it, and it is just as solid as Tiger ever was.

 

Our PC on the other hand needs to have XP reinstalled every 4-6 months (on average). There is ALWAYS some issue with XP and it never runs as promised. That was one of the reasons why we switched to OS X (that and the virus/spyware issue of windows machines).

 

So yes, this is another person who sees OS X as being light-years ahead of windows

[slacker25]

Ive reinstalled OSX but mearly cause iw as bored not cause it needed it and that was after 5 years of running the same thing

[jaez]

Red herring. All EULA's fall under the same heading. As long as it doesn't conflict with any other law, then it is binding!

 

Just as I thought. Duck the question. Can't find a single case to cite, huh? That's because its perfectly legal to install any OS you bought on any computer, regardless of what the EULA says.

[slacker25]

@ jaez just bevause its never been tried does not mean he is incorrect but .. rather no one is as clueless as you

 

and Maxintosh is just standing his ground on an argument you are making ... dont shift the burden of truth to someone else if you are going to ask for a valid case in cite.. .provide one that is actually valid for you POV and not something that you are bending the truth out of its case title to make it fit your way of thinking

[jaez]

@ jaez

you did ripp it when yuou modded it to work pn your {censored} box.....the right ot used said purchase is that if it stays in tackt the way apple intended it to be used

 

and if you are expecting apple to read you your miranda rights when ever you purchase your software ... Grow up and go read a book

 

I segugst taht you raed a book Slacker25. You cna't eevn wirte. It's hrad to raed yuor txet. I neevr meddod aynhthig. It so hnppaes taht my cetupmr has teh rhgit cmpoonetns to inatsll OSX. So, waht if I got a llttie hlep form Kwlyaay? Huh? It's his cdoe cntbriuttioon to teh intsall proecss taht eanlbes OSX to wrok. But, I ddin't innevt teh moodatiicifns. I Jsut uesd tehm. And tehy are in teh plbuic daomin. Who kowns waht Alppe ientdned? Tehy neevr tlod me aynnhtig. I bguoht OSX and uesd it for waht I wntaed to. It's my menoy tehy took. Tehy ddin't hvae to tkae my menoy. But, tehy did. And so, I hvae teh rgiht to do waht I wnat wtih teh swotfare.

[Maxintosh]

Can't find a single case to cite, huh?

Whether I have the time to find one or not does not mean that one does not exist. You sound like one of those narrow-minded people who told Christopher Columbus that the world MUST be flat - since he couldn't find anyone to agree with him. The scientist over at NASA have a saying "Just because something hasn't yet been found, doesn't mean it doesn't exist". All EULA's fall under the same heading. As long as they don't conflict with any other law, then they are binding contracts! Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.

 

And you of all people shouldn't be telling anyone to read a book. How many times have people in this thread tried to explain to you that you didn't pay for OS X, but what you paid for was a licence that allows you to use it. If you can't even comprehend that basic fact then it's time to wait for the judges verdict - which I'm sure will prove once and forever just how little you understand about this topic.

[BigPimpin]

As long as they don't conflict with any other law, then they are binding contracts!

Hahahahahahaha! That's one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on the internet. In fact, they are no such thing. You should read up some time on the elements that go into making what the law considers to be a contract. You don't have to be a lawyer or even go to law school to understand the basics. Here's a hint for you because you like to blather instead of educating yourself: A EULA is not a contract. At best it's a "License Agreement", and at worst it's a meaningless attempt on somebody's part to convince you that you have no say in the matter. I repeat....

[slacker25]

@jaez

 

Actually have read a lot of books .... its just easier to fat finger everything some times ... when multi taking at job and other things that hey im sorry if you dont know how to get a job and save up to buy a mac... but thats ok

[John the Geek]

Hahahahahahaha! That's one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read on the internet. In fact, they are no such thing. You should read up some time on the elements that go into making what the law considers to be a contract. You don't have to be a lawyer or even go to law school to understand the basics. Here's a hint for you because you like to blather instead of educating yourself: A EULA is not a contract. At best it's a "License Agreement", and at worst it's a meaningless attempt on somebody's part to convince you that you have no say in the matter. I repeat....

 

Are you laughing at yourself?

 

Hell, you could have at least Wiki'd the thing first before making yourself look like a 14-year-old.

 

A software license agreement is a contract between a producer and a user of computer software which grants the user a software license. Most often, a software license agreement indicates the terms under which an end-user may utilize the licensed software, in which case the agreement is called an end-user license agreement or EULA. When the software license agreement is between the software licensor and a business or government entity, it is often implemented as a specialized form of contract with many clauses unique to the license and the nature of the software being licensed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA