Psystar: We're Not Shutting Down for Good

[JMcEntegart]

No Mac clones but you can still buy the software to aid you in making your own.

Psystar: We're Not Shutting Down for Good : Read more

 

[mlopinto2k1]

Doesn't that break the ruling? They they aren't supposed to be a part of any kind of "hacking" of the Operating System?

 

[smashley]

The ruling just says that they can't sell systems preinstalled with MacOS, but doesn't specify anything about selling software to facilitate an end user putting it on themself.

 

[jhansonxi]

For some reason, the Black Knight in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail comes to mind.

 

[sunflier]

Psystar is still worming its way through apple.

 

[sliem]

If EU can do similar things to M$ over, they can do the same to Apple. Down with Apple and its greedy taxmen!

 

[zelannii]

@smashley: you apparently did not read the ruling...

Specifically, the injunction bars Psystar from doing any of the following:

1. Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or creating derivative works of" Mac OS X without permission.
2. Inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging" other parties to infringe on Mac OS X copyrights.
3. Circumventing any technological measure" designed to prevent installing Mac OS X on approved hardware.
4. Having anything whatsoever to do with "any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that circumvents Apple's technological protections of Mac OS X.
5. Having anything whatsoever to do with "any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that circumvents Apple's technological protections of Apple's copyright of Mac OS X.

Additionally the judge firmly warned them against "defiant or unreasonable conduct" between now and Jan 1, and also strongly questioned the legality of Rebel EFI even though it was not directly included in the case. He mentioned all that was necessary was for apple to request a simple contempt proceeding wich would immediately bring Rebel EFI and any other technology under the scope of the ruling, which requires no additional trial to conclude, and for which the punishment would be sever. I expect apple to file such motion within a few weeks, if not by Jan 1 itself.

 

[zelannii]

@Sleim,

Apple is doing the EXACT same thing Microsoft does. Look, it;s equally egainst the EULA to use a upgrade copy of Win7 to install Win 7 on a new machine, claiming the re-use of an OEM licence on new hardware. This HAS been held up in court, and microsoft regularly fines small resellers for selling machines with less-than-retail licneced machines. The courts take this in stride and hand out judgements so often its not news. I know 2 resellers in SC that had their doos closed for the exact same thing Psystar was doing, except with comodity PCs and windows, and WITHOUT circumventing DRM.

Apple is exactly in their rights. They're not suing Psystar for selling clones, they're suing Psystar for distributing PCs purported to run OS X, including only an Upgrade licence, with no validatably copy of the OS to upgrade.

The courts have already ruled in favor of apple refusing to open it's OS to the open market. That's not illegal. There's fair competition in the market segment, and Apple can do watever they like so long as they do not directly interfere with the abiltiy for another vendor to compete. Ruling otherwise would mean Palm would have to sell their OS on non-Palm phones, that you could put the TomTom map updates on a Garmin, IBM would have to allow the install of OS390 on non-big-blue mainframes, and more. They have EVERY RIGHT to restrict what hardware their support organization is required to support, and where the license can be placed. in fact, they even have the right, should they choose, to charge different prices for commercial and non-commercial licenses of the exact same software (like microsoft does, but thankfully Apple does not). until they are the ONLY Os maker, or until the courts decide there's a monopoly or Duopoly, and there has then beyond that been actual motions to stifle the competition (like Intel paying Dell and others to not sell AMD chips), then it's still PERFECTLY LEGAL, and you still have every right to not buy their products.

 

[falchard]

Hmm, does this mean Psystar can get around to selling a better computer like a... windows or linux machine? They have the long drawn out name recognition.

 

[jerreece]

[citation][nom]zelannii[/nom]@Sleim,Apple is doing the EXACT same thing Microsoft does. Look, it;s equally egainst the EULA to use a upgrade copy of Win7 to install Win 7 on a new machine, claiming the re-use of an OEM licence on new hardware. This HAS been held up in court, and microsoft regularly fines small resellers for selling machines with less-than-retail licneced machines. The courts take this in stride and hand out judgements so often its not news. I know 2 resellers in SC that had their doos closed for the exact same thing Psystar was doing, except with comodity PCs and windows, and WITHOUT circumventing DRM. Apple is exactly in their rights. They're not suing Psystar for selling clones, they're suing Psystar for distributing PCs purported to run OS X, including only an Upgrade licence, with no validatably copy of the OS to upgrade.The courts have already ruled in favor of apple refusing to open it's OS to the open market. That's not illegal. There's fair competition in the market segment, and Apple can do watever they like so long as they do not directly interfere with the abiltiy for another vendor to compete. Ruling otherwise would mean Palm would have to sell their OS on non-Palm phones, that you could put the TomTom map updates on a Garmin, IBM would have to allow the install of OS390 on non-big-blue mainframes, and more. They have EVERY RIGHT to restrict what hardware their support organization is required to support, and where the license can be placed. in fact, they even have the right, should they choose, to charge different prices for commercial and non-commercial licenses of the exact same software (like microsoft does, but thankfully Apple does not). until they are the ONLY Os maker, or until the courts decide there's a monopoly or Duopoly, and there has then beyond that been actual motions to stifle the competition (like Intel paying Dell and others to not sell AMD chips), then it's still PERFECTLY LEGAL, and you still have every right to not buy their products.[/citation]

Except wasn't there a federal court case that basically said the EULA's of software companies were garbage? Saying that if you buy the software on a DVD/CD, that you own that copy of the software and can do whatever you want with it personally? (with exception of selling for profit obviously).

 

[uh_no]

blegh

microsoft gets in trouble with the EU for not giving you options to use other browsers (lol) but mac gets away with FORCING you to use their hardware and software.......not sure what the difference is there.....

 

[mj4358]

Apple allows other OS's to run on their hardware. Microsoft did not allow other web browsers to work correctly or be the default browser on their OS. Thats the difference

 

[metalfellow]

[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]Microsoft did not allow other web browsers to work correctly...[/citation]
I didn't know they didn't allow them to run properly, how did they do that? I've never had any problem installing any browser, was this something only done in Europe?

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]sliem[/nom]If EU can do similar things to M$ over, they can do the same to Apple. Down with Apple and its greedy taxmen![/citation]
First and foremost, we don't use apple stuff as much as americans (except for ipods), and secondly apple has smarter lawyers than microsoft that are well versed in conducting immoral business without making it unlawful. A case against apple would be much harder to win than against a reasonable company with reasonably clear motives and ambigions. And to top it all off, the EU decicionmakers are rather daft and probably haven't even realized that apple exists.

[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]Apple allows other OS's to run on their hardware. Microsoft did not allow other web browsers to work correctly or be the default browser on their OS. Thats the difference[/citation]
Microsoft never blocked anyone from developing a competing product to one included in windows. They certainly didn't help out for free, but who would. Since the beginning of windows you could replace the entire gui shell if that was what you wanted. There wasn't anyone stopping you from developing your own replacement for command.com in dos either. Windows and linux systems are based on the same principles of 'kernel' and 'shell'. Microsoft merely didn't advertise the options for changing out stuff, but that's hardly a crime. You can't demand GM to point out that you can replace your blaupunkt cd radio with a pioneer dvd player either.

 

[mj4358]

The particulars have been discussed in court. Your take on the case is mere conjecture. Fact is that is one reason why Microsoft landed in court....period!

 

[back_by_demand]

Apple allows other OS's to run on their hardware. Microsoft did not allow other web browsers to work correctly or be the default browser on their OS. Thats the difference

Which dick posted this?

I'm sure his posting has some kind of twisted logic, that maybe I can run Windows on a Mac as long as I use Boot Camp. But Boot Camp is NOT pre-installed and Windows is NOT part of the OSX installation, unlike how MS has now been forced to have the "Choice Screen"...

And how exactly does MS stop other browsers working? I can understand not making someone elses browser the default, because who would you pick other than your own when there are dozens to choose from? One that you spent millions developing or one that hasn't paid you a single penny for the privilige of being included against your will?

Honestly, this is the REAL WORLD, grow a fucking brain!

 

[banthracis]

[citation][nom]zelannii[/nom]@Sleim,Apple is doing the EXACT same thing Microsoft does. Look, it;s equally egainst the EULA to use a upgrade copy of Win7 to install Win 7 on a new machine.[/citation]

Actually that part isn't true. Win 7 student deal on win741.com (MS's official site for the promotion) is an upgrade edition and they tell you that you can install it on a new machine and tell you how to.

So yea, totally told by MS itself you can use upgrade version for fresh install.

 

[producepete]

[citation][nom]uh_no[/nom]bleghmicrosoft gets in trouble with the EU for not giving you options to use other browsers (lol) but mac gets away with FORCING you to use their hardware and software.......not sure what the difference is there.....[/citation]

Apple is not forcing you to use their hardware and software. Consumers have the option of buying a Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony, etc.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]producepete[/nom]Apple is not forcing you to use their hardware and software. Consumers have the option of buying a Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony, etc.[/citation]
Yes and no.

Yes, you do have the option of buying Dell, HP, etc etc but...
No, you aren't allowed to have OSX on it without breaking the law, so...
Yes, Apple is forcing you to use their hardware if you want to use OSX, therefore...
No, you don't have any choice with Apple other than what they let you have

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]banthracis[/nom]Actually that part isn't true. Win 7 student deal on win741.com (MS's official site for the promotion) is an upgrade edition and they tell you that you can install it on a new machine and tell you how to. So yea, totally told by MS itself you can use upgrade version for fresh install.[/citation]
Me too, the missus got me the student offer upgrade. It is an upgrade if I run it over a Vista installation, but if I run it over an XP installation it will not upgrade, it does a clean install instead. I tested this by then running it over a brand new unused HDD and it installed a perfectly working version of Windows 7.

All upgrade versions of Windows have done this, only requiring me to enter the license key once finished.

Please, research dumb comments before posting.

 

[producepete]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Yes and no.Yes, you do have the option of buying Dell, HP, etc etc but...No, you aren't allowed to have OSX on it without breaking the law, so...Yes, Apple is forcing you to use their hardware if you want to use OSX, therefore...No, you don't have any choice with Apple other than what they let you have[/citation]

I still don't see that as forcing people to use anything, when other personal computing choices are present. And, I can't imagine the lawsuit storm that would be created if the Apple/OSX pairing was declared illegal. There are devices all over that lock you into certain software. You don't buy an Xbox 360 and expect to run the PS3 OS and vice versa. Or what about all the SmartPhones, I can't buy a Blackberry and run Android.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]producepete[/nom]I still don't see that as forcing people to use anything, when other personal computing choices are present. And, I can't imagine the lawsuit storm that would be created if the Apple/OSX pairing was declared illegal. There are devices all over that lock you into certain software. You don't buy an Xbox 360 and expect to run the PS3 OS and vice versa. Or what about all the SmartPhones, I can't buy a Blackberry and run Android.[/citation]
Well MS isn't forcing anyone to use IE, but apparently the EU thinks different. So which way does this go? If I go into the Apple store and pay my money to buy a copy of OSX, I am going to install it anywhere I damn well please. I am not "renting" the software. Even if Psystar is closed down, people will still find ways to use OSX without buying hardware that costs DOUBLE an equivalent speed PC and Apple needs to get that into its thick head.

 

[mj4358]

back_by_dumb ass Demand,

Get a grip and Know the facts before you try to insult someone. I never said widows was pre-installed and Yes you have to use boot camp to install Windows due to EFI and the needed drivers for the hardware you moronic kluts.
The API's for windows was not shared and believed to be manipulated to favor Explorer that cause third party vendor Netsacpe (now firefox) to not run correctly.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]mj4358[/nom]back_by_dumb ass Demand,Get a grip and Know the facts before you try to insult someone. I never said widows was pre-installed and Yes you have to use boot camp to install Windows due to EFI and the needed drivers for the hardware you moronic kluts. The API's for windows was not shared and believed to be manipulated to favor Explorer that cause third party vendor Netsacpe (now firefox) to not run correctly.[/citation]
I think, based on the recent events of the EU, that I was pointing to the fact MS now have to have other peoples browsers in the installation and that Apple doesn't have to do this with an alternate OS choice, so I know what im talking about, dumbass

And since when is Netscape anything to do with the current ruling. Netscape failed not because MS did a number on it, it failed because it cost $60 and wasn't very good.

 

[producepete]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]...If I go into the Apple store and pay my money to buy a copy of OSX, I am going to install it anywhere I damn well please. I am not "renting" the software...[/citation]

Well the EULA states otherwise, and it's no different than most other software, including Windows. You are getting a license to use the software, so in a way, yes it is "renting" the software. With that license agreement comes certain restrictions, and once again, it goes beyond just OS's. Would anyone honestly purchase Uncharted 2 and then flip out because they can't get it working on their 360, I think not. EULA's are the way of the software world, regardless if we like it or not.