Psystar: We're Not Shutting Down for Good
No Mac clones but you can still buy the software to aid you in making your own.
Late last week there was confusion as to whether or not Psystar would continue to do business now that the company was no longer allowed to selling Mac OS X on non-Apple-branded computers. One lawyer said the company was shutting up shop and all employees would be laid off. Another claimed that was a misquote, adding that despite the site being offline, Psystar was not permanently shutting down.
It seems the second statement from Camara & Sibley partner, K. A. D. Camara, was right. The Psystar store is back online and, while there's nary a hackintosh in sight, the company is still selling Rebel EFI.
The software, which allows users to run OS X on their PC, was not mentioned specifically in an injunction handed down last week. The injunction awarded to Apple prevents Psystar from selling any computers with Apple's OS X software preinstalled. However, Judge Aslop did not address the issue of Rebel EFI. Stating he did not believe it was his place to decide whether the software falls within the scope of the injunction or not because Psystar didn't mention it in statements made to the court.
MacObserver cites Psystar lawyer Camara as saying, "Psystar will proceed to litigate the legality of Rebel EFI through the motion process described in Judge Alsup's order. Psystar will also proceed with its antitrust case in Miami."
- Nvidia's Cartoons Continue to Poke Fun at Intel
- Friday Deals: One Week Left Till Christmas Day!
- Hasbro Suing Atari over D&D License
- LaCie Intros USB 3.0 Dual-Drive RAID
- Dell's Latitude On Flash Boots Laptop in Seconds
- Bluetooth 4.0 Specifications Unveiled
- JooJoo Company Responds to TechCrunch Lawsuit
- Intel Shows Off the Best Core i7, i5 Case Mods
- Nvidia: Tegra 2 is Coming
- Face Tracking HP Webcams Can't Track Black Faces
- Firefox 3.5 is World's Most Popular Browser
- Confirmed: Serious Sam 3 in 2010
- Winners From Our 4GB DDR3 Memory Kit Contest
- Intel Unveils Next-Gen Atom Pinetrail Chips
- Pandora Almost Done; Plays Quake 3, Mario 64
- Dell Mini 9 Explodes, Burns Hole in Floor
- Tuesday Deals: Just Three Days Until Christmas!
- Epic Shows off Unreal Engine 3 Running on iPhone
Doesn't that break the ruling? They they aren't supposed to be a part of any kind of "hacking" of the Operating System?
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.
For some reason, the Black Knight in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail comes to mind.
Psystar is still worming its way through apple.
If EU can do similar things to M$ over, they can do the same to Apple. Down with Apple and its greedy taxmen!
@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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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).
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.....
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
Microsoft did not allow other web browsers to work correctly...
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?
If EU can do similar things to M$ over, they can do the same to Apple. Down with Apple and its greedy taxmen!
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.
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
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.
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!
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!
@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.
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.
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.....
Apple is not forcing you to use their hardware and software. Consumers have the option of buying a Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony, etc.
Apple is not forcing you to use their hardware and software. Consumers have the option of buying a Dell, HP, Acer, Toshiba, Sony, etc.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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_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.
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.
...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...
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.
If the EULA states that the software is not to be used for a clean install, how come they have a guide that tells you how to do it?
This whole thing comes full circle, it is about one thing and one thing only, Apple wants everyone who uses OSX to invest a couple thousand dollars on overpriced hardware. Plain and simple. A company comes along and proves to people that it doesn't have to be this way, so Apple grinds them under its Nazi jackboot.
So when Psystar says, "Fine, we will stop selling the equipment, but we won't stop telling people how to do it themselves", I say "Fuckin' Amen to that, Brother!"
Thats the problem your trying to think and posting stupid comments! So your crying because Apple isn't forced to install more than one OS? What other PC manufacturer installs more than one OS just to give customers a choice? I live in Germany and No local manufacture does that. And since when is it a requirement that an OS must support another vendors Hardware? So now that MS got their pepe spanked you wanna see apple suffer too? Pressing for this to apply to Apple just because you hate them is simplistic and lacking foresight. DUMBASS!
Also, the EU has no bearing on the United States when it comes to Anti-trust laws so i don't know why your even bringing this up.
In regards to MS VS Netscape; I never said it did have anything to do with the current ruling. And if you use your computer and do some research about the case and stop shooting from the hip and leave the baseless opinions out; you would know that case also argued that since Microsoft was giving away the browser with the OS they had an Unfair advantage along with the API manipulation to prevent other browsers from working correctly. DUMBASS!
If the EULA states that the software is not to be used for a clean install, how come they have a guide that tells you how to do it?
It has nothing to do with upgrade/clean install. Copy and pasted straight from Apple's OSX EULA:
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
And just for fun, straight from Windows 7 EULA:
8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the features included in the software edition you licensed. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.
Limiting how software is used can stink, but companies all over do it, and if they put the work into it, I guess it is their right to impose the restrictions.
In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways.
This does not mean that an "upgrade" version is unable to do a clean install. The limitation imposed is that you must have a valid license key for it afterwards. For example the Student offer is an "upgrade" version. If I run it over my existing Vista I use my existing Vista license key, if I run the clean install I have to use the license key I bought with the download.
If I buy a copy of OSX Snow Leopard from the Apple shop then supposedly that is also an upgrade only for installation over the older version of OSX. If the EULA is so watertight, how come it has a license key and can be used totally legitimately to install on a brand new hard drive if the old one suffers a mechanical failure?
The EULA isn't a list of things that the software is not able to do. It is a list of things they don't want you to do, but know full well that you can do them if you want, but if you do they are not responsible for the outcome. Standard disclaimer. Cherry picking stuff from and EULA is a bitch, show me your degree in contract law and i'll give you $50 right now.
I'd like to see a Hackintosh running on fake RAMBUS... now that would be a quality show in the courts.
Apple does not and has never used a License Key for their OS in the 6 yrs of using macs for their software.
It still installs clean on a new hard drive. It does not require a previous version of OSX to be there. Dont you get it?