Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar to countersue Apple for antitrust violations
- Thread starter macenforcer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The license does not lie with the hardware but with the software. At no point is the hardware mentioned as a component of OS X, although the printed materials accompanying OS X including the license itself is.
Thats an important point. Any arguments about individual activity are irrelevant since Psystar is not an individual nor can they act as one on behalf of an end user since they are business. You can't get out of a murder rap since you hired a hitman. Both of you get nailed.
You start getting into selling Apple's trademarks, you get into a real messy area - especially where it is a commercial venture. Since any retail box of OSX requires a Mac to install, it would depend on what Apple constitutes as a labeled machine. Obviously it is something that they would sell or authorize somebody (like Best Buy for example), but it would be official
But since the hardware is required for the license to be valid, the "key" is the hardware.
Arguably, part of the license is the hardware itself. Several products are including hardware devices (a USB dongle) to run their products legally. Of course they can be illegally bypassed but that doesn't change things). It is perfectly legitimate to link a software license to a hardware product. Again, one company that does this is ProTools. Another is Elgato (you need an approved TV tuner)
NINTENDO AND CISCO DO NOT SELL THEIR OPERATING SYSTEMS FOR $129 at the APPLE STORE. JEEZ!
Well, this is all a getting a bit technical, and in the end, the license is whatever the courts say it is, but there are specific mentionings of situations where you are not allowed to transfer the license. However, that does not preclude you of selling the hardware. It also does not preclude the new owner of buying a license directly from Apple, which seems to suggest that Apple Software and Apple Hardware are two different products and so tying could be an issue.
Technically neither does Apple. They sell an upgrade - not a full product. It has not been done in the game market, but there is nothing stopping Nintendo from doing a major update of the Wii OS and selling it like Apple does. The fact that Apple is alone in their methods is not illegal and is nothing more than a marketing decision that Apple decides is competitive.
Hogwash. I am holding the retail version of OSX 10.5 leopard in my hand right now and NOWHERE does it say UPGRADE. When installing it NOWHERE does it try to verify a prior installation. Its a FULL version. Its only an upgrade in your mind. To the LAW and everyone else in the sane world its a full version.
You have a point. I read the EULA again and it mentions the Boot ROM as one of the components of the software. That means, that if you lose any part of the printed materials or the license itself you cannot transfer the license, as that would constitute a breach.
That means that either you cannot buy an Apple computer without all the accompaning materials of the software or that you can buy it, but you're not allowed to use it unless you buy a separate copy of OS X.
If the latter is true, then you can install OS X on an Apple branded computer without already owning a license. The original license follows the software AND the hardware and so it is the same product. However, a standalone version of OS X is a separate product and the license to this follows the software, as no boot ROM is included in the package and you can install it on any number of macs as long as it only is installed on one at the time.
In addition, you can transfer the license of the retail OS X without providing the buyer with a Boot ROM. Again, that seems to suggest, that the retail version of OS X is a separate product and thus the tying argument can be made.
Phew, this is hairy
There is none. There are no damages to Apple. However, do all of that as a corporation on a mass scale, there will be damages to Apple. Those causing the damages are liable. Advertise, and it has a potential to hurt Apple's trademark, which they are legally obligated to protect.
There is a huge difference between individual users doing a one-off sale, a trade, etc, and a business that is incorporated. Why is that so hard to understand?
Cite please. Apple's EULA requires a Apple branded Mac. Having an Apple Branded Mac licenses you to use OSX. Simply having a full OS on a disc hat performs no verification steps (in other words the honor system) does not change the fact that there are terms. You just can't barge into my house legally if I have a lock on my door but do not lock it.
The fact that Apple does not employ technical verification steps (And given that you have to modify the product to use it as a full copy) does not make it a OEM copy or any full version.
Microsoft has the same image for both their retail Full and upgrade versions. It does not make them the same product. As long as Apple asserts that the Version of OSX you purchase is an upgrade, it is an upgrade.
Sorry but you are very very wrong. The upgrade version of Vista says UPGRADE on the package and it checks for a prior version AND its cheaper. OS X Retail has no such price discount, verification checks or upgrade nomenclature. Ouch huh?
You have a point. I read the EULA again and it mentions the Boot ROM as one of the components of the software. That means, that if you lose any part of the printed materials or the license itself you cannot transfer the license, as that would constitute a breach.
That means that either you cannot buy an Apple computer without all the accompaning materials of the software or that you can buy it, but you're not allowed to use it unless you buy a separate copy of OS X.
If the latter is true, then you can install OS X on an Apple branded computer without already owning a license. The original license follows the software AND the hardware and so it is the same product. However, a standalone version of OS X is a separate product and the license to this follows the software, as no boot ROM is included in the package and you can install it on any number of macs as long as it only is installed on one at the time.
In addition, you can transfer the license of the retail OS X without providing the buyer with a Boot ROM. Again, that seems to suggest, that the retail version of OS X is a separate product and thus the tying argument can be made.
Phew, this is hairy
It is hairy. But you are saying what I have been trying to get across. THe Store version (of say Leopard) may be a separate product, but having a Mac is what makes it legit to install it. You can transfer the license, but the terms of usage are still the same as before, you need to have a Mac or else you have to modify the source. Just like you could run a pirated version of ProTools with a hacked dongle. Possible, yes, legal, no.
The point I'm trying to make is that the retail OS X and the hardware are two different products so the tying argument is not DOA. Note that I'm not a lawyer (or even a US citizen) so it's just one guys opinion, but I'd like to see the counter-argument.
Irrelevant. THe EULA implies that a license actually exists. The checks are not needed because there is no other way to have an OSX licence.
Again show me a cite that states that OSX is not an upgrade due to its wording or enforcement. Heck, Show me where what you are asserting is the case in Apple Advertising.
I agree with that, but my point was that Psystar can argue that Apple are illegally tying these products together, when they sell OS X separately, but sets as a condition that you must agree to not use it without using it on an Apple branded computer.
Heck the box itself says "usage of this product is subject to acceptance of the Software Licence Agreement(s) included in this package. Do not Steal Software.
This statement would imply that violating the agreement (which includes the machine you install it on) would not allow you to use the software.
How is it illegal? Psystar can argue whatever they want. If it isn't relevant, it doesn't mean much. Exactly what is Apple doing that is illegal? How is bundling two related products together illegal? How is selling upgrades illegal?
The EULA has been quoted multiple times. Since owning an Apple Branded computer is a valid license. Prove to me that Apple must use the word "upgrade" anywhere. They don't have to.