So you don't have to do anything after the install is complete? Even if that is the case, you are still circumventing the protections, which may be a violation of the DMCA.
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
So you don't have to do anything after the install is complete? Even if that is the case, you are still circumventing the protections, which may be a violation of the DMCA.
LOL. I guess some people just can't, won't, refuse to see the truth. This whole thread is full of people not seeing the apple plan for what it is. Oh well. You will all find out when the courts say so I guess. But when that happens and it will you all will be posting in the forums about how you just installed OS X on your Dell and love it.
Even if Apple were to lose on that part of the EULA I don't think we'd see what you (and others) suggest. Apple would just go back to proprietary ROM chips or explicitly sate in a new, legal way that the Mac hardware itself is the licence key and clearly state that all retail copies of OS X are true, official upgrades and, like any other upgrade, require an existing license.
Since Macsmurf isn't in the U.S. that means little. (Not that I support the pirating of software, but s/he's not bound by that law.)
Also true. For the record, I bought my copy of OS X from Apple. I don't consider that piracy, but I'm pretty sure Apple do.
...on a completely unrelated note. In the above sentence, is the correct term Apple do or Apple does? It's been bugging me all day.
You're right, but I was leading to the fact that Psystar is bound by it, and even if they didn't modify OS X, circumventing the boot ROM is probably in violation of the DMCA.
I can see the reason for that. On the other hand, I'm referring to an opinion of a company, which is absurd, so implicitly I'm saying the people working at Apple would consider it piracy. Thus the confusion. Anyway, thanks for the answer. OK, time for bed
I can see the reason for that. On the other hand, I'm referring to an opinion of a company, which is absurd, so implicitly I'm saying the people working at Apple would consider it piracy. Thus the confusion. Anyway, thanks for the answer. OK, time for bed
But you are referring to Apple, which is singular. It does imply many people, but the name Apple is singular.
I'm pretty sure Coca-Cola couldn't get away with selling Pepsi in a Coke bottle. If I make a product, don't I have a right to stop other people from selling it in their packages? Especially if my product isn't designed for that packaging and as a result performs poorly and propagates a negative image of my product?
Yes, you do have that right as a company. Especially if that product is trademarked or copyrighted.
I don't know why people have a hard time accepting what you have just wrote. YOu are 100% correct. Psystar as a corporation cannot violate Apple's EULA. As a business, they have a higher standard of expectations to meet than an individual does.
If Apple's practices in their OS sales were shaky legally, they would have been questioned long ago by Apple's competitors or we would have seen clones return several years ago. They aren't. Either Pystar is a legal genius (which by their abuse of Apple trademarks - ie OpenMac - I would say that is not the case), or they are wrong and making a desperate move to lay the groundwork for a defense.
Can anybody answer this question: "Why didn't Psystar sue Apple before selling their product on the market and abuse Apple's trademarks (by calling it an OpenMac initially)?" By waiting until after, they seem to know that they are violating an EULA as a business. Surely they know they can't just can't invite a law suit and expect to counter sue and win.
Short answer? It depends. Long answer? Get ready to get bored:
The entity "Apple" is a singular noun used to represent a group which collectively form the singular noun. In linguistic terms this is a collective noun (other examples include family, committee, group, and club). Now, does a collective noun take a singular verb (and pronoun) or a plural one? It depends on who's English one speaks. In American English it depends on how the group is being spoken of in the sentence. If the group is acting as a singular unit then the verb and pronoun are used as for a singular entity: The team is traveling on a tour bus and it is noisy and smells of Diesel fumes.
The problem with this approach is that the it isn't clearly referenced to a particular noun i.e. it could refer to either the team or a tour bus. So when this method is used one should be careful to keep the pronouns clearly linked with their respective antecedents: The team is noisy and smells of Diesel fumes, and is traveling on a tour bus.
The reverse is true if the group's action can be divided down to individuals (or smaller sub-groups): The team have their mothers wash their dirty uniforms is proper while The team has it's mothers wash it's dirty uniforms is not. Since the right way sound odd to a lot of people one often adds a plural noun after the collective noun: The team members have their mothers wash their dirty uniforms
In British English collective nouns are almost always treated as plural: The team are traveling on a tour bus to the big game. There are times when British English uses singulars, and there are times where American English uses mixed singular verbs/plural pronouns: The team is traveling on a tour bus. They will play in the big game. This structure, however, isn't considered proper.
has anyone actually tried to do just that. go buy OSX at the store and install it on a PC machine. and what happened.
Bad logic...
This is flawed - there is no way to get the Wii OS to run on a PS3 or Xbox, the hardware is fundamentally different.
On the other hand, the Hackintosh community clearly shows us that a PC without an Apple logo runs OSX with just a few tweaks - and it is only Apple's willful actions that make those tweaks necessary.
You don't need the Apple logo on the PC, except that Apple's anti-competitive monopolistic business practices try to make it so.
This is flawed - there is no way to get the Wii OS to run on a PS3 or Xbox, the hardware is fundamentally different.
On the other hand, the Hackintosh community clearly shows us that a PC without an Apple logo runs OSX with just a few tweaks - and it is only Apple's willful actions that make those tweaks necessary.
You don't need the Apple logo on the PC, except that Apple's anti-competitive monopolistic business practices try to make it so.
The very fact that you believe that that Wikipedia entry even appears to say that Pystar wins (it doesn't) clearly shows that you really don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
Not true, the mod is to the firmware which has it's own partition on the HD.
Needless to sat the Mod is to the firmware which in and of itself is copyright material licensed to you by Apple.
Then again tying the firmware product to the hardware product is illegal in some peoples eyes.
Apple is in a whole mess of strife, soon well all have to go out and buy each chip and connector, a blank mobo, pay another guy to etch it another to drill the holes, yet another to weld the chips on to said mobo. Then a whole new mess as we find each individual programmer to write each driver. Plus buy a Kernal, Each API, various UI's so that we can work and that's all we can go out a pay a developer to write some code to do productive work*
After all tying anyone of these IP elements to a Hardware element is clearly illegal.
*Yes I'm not doing productive work, but I'm blaming the the company supplied drinks.
LOL. I guess some people just can't, won't, refuse to see the truth. This whole thread is full of people not seeing the apple plan for what it is. Oh well. You will all find out when the courts say so I guess. But when that happens and it will you all will be posting in the forums about how you just installed OS X on your Dell and love it.
Wrong.
I'll be posting about how I miss the 'good old days' of OSX being a nice end-to-end complete solution, and it having become everything that turned me away from the PC/Windows market in the first place.
(I don't deny that many people will be posting about how they love their DellOSX. Just that I don't think I'll be one of them - which sort of ruins your 'all'.)
I won't deny that some people would rather OSX could install on any PC hardware. I won't even deny that some (Mac Mini...) Apple hardware is way overpriced for what it is. I won't deny that the lack of a non-mini, non-AIO, non-pro-workstation desktop model is a gap in the market.
However, that does not change my opinion that it's the designed-as-one aspect of the Mac that makes it, well, "The Mac".
The OS that installs on anything, has more options that you can shake a stick at, and activation/key checks on installation is precisely why I don't rate Windows as highly as I do OSX.
I see a very possible risk of activation. Of reduced "whole system" profits making the Apple models have to raise their prices even higher (whilst still being superior to a majority of the cheaper alternatives - just harder to afford) to compensate. Of delays in releases, as they have to test more combinations.
Of it becoming everything that Windows is.
And yes, I do see "The Apple Plan" for what it is - a company's desire to make a profit.
I just happen to personally believe that it is linked to why their software/hardware combo works so well. I fear that OSX on commodity hardware, or via clones, will slowly erode at what I believe makes the Mac a good product. Maybe not immediately, but over time.
I could be wrong, but that's my general fear.
No. The concern is that the merger would force customers into a monopoly without sufficiently consolidating the satellite market given its massive unprofitability. The "delay" is typical of any large corporate merger having huge impacts on the market.
This has nothing to do with a company achieving a monopoly through consumer action, nor does it speak in any sense to monopolies being per se illegal.
On the contrary, the two of them constitute 100% of their market.
No. Re-read what you wrote. You're not being blocked from using third party hardware with your Macintosh. Your forced parallel to physical products ends there.
If you want to consider the OS, you're being told that you must own a product to be eligible to purchase the second. It's not the same as being told you have to make an extra purchase before they sell you a product for it. You're not required to buy iLife and OS X together. Product ownership prerequisites are common and legal.
Yeah, and your point?
No it's not.
Absent a judgment, not a hope, that unlawful anticompetitive behavior exists, no law has been violated. It's a moot argument. Psystar does indeed hope they can shoehorn something in. Unfortunately, they can't. There are so many distinctions and differences from their two principle authorities that there's little chance of success, especially in today's established landscape.
Eligibility requirements are not illegal tying any more than promotional tying is.
Precisely. Apple sells those $129 discs to you (and only to you) only because you've already paid for a full license of OS X when you first bought your computer.
Of course.
Cannot use what product?
Yes, he did. He chose not to use it, but he most certainly possessed it.
Based on? The printed materials of the Macintosh are not parts of the OS X license.
The EULA has nothing to do with the MacBook. There is no breach.
The computer, being a Mac, is ipso facto licensed to operate whatever version of OS X it originally shipped with. If a user declines to make use of that license, that is his choice and he remains free to install Windows, Linux, or any other OS he may lawfully acquire. If he later chooses to accept the OS X SLA, he may do so by purchasing a compatible copy.
This is also the reason you can have restore discs replaced when lost. PC vendors attach the proof of license to the case or provide it in the box. Retail copies contain a certificate. The Apple logo and serial number provide that function for a Mac.
The hardware is far from the only relevant consideration, nor does compatibility start or end the discussion.
An OEM disc for Dell machines is bound to Dell machines even though Windows works on HP as well. One cannot, as a general rule, be compelled to provide their product to competitors at all and is free to sell accessories, add-ons, and upgrades solely for their own customers, should they choose to do so.
What would be anticompetitive would be to sell OS X without the platform prerequisite, as it would constitute predatory pricing, since the retail price does not support the product. In short, even a victory for Psystar, narrow chance though it may be, is a loss.
Apple can and plainly will adapt its sales model for OS X upgrades to continue to serve its customers and its tightfisted self-interest. Psystar is effectively closing that door--the $129, no questions asked policy ends. It's a classic Pyrrhic victory. If it were to remain available to the general market at all in this hypothetical victory, it will be at a cost-plus level, which by the numbers will be priced higher than a copy of Windows. More likely, it will simply be made available through an alternate channel, such as orders only through Software Update. One cannot be compelled to sell in the retail channel.
Of course, the bottom line is that tying requires you to have to buy something else. If you buy a Mac, you don't need to buy a copy of OS X, because it's already got one. The retail product, the only conceivable basis, is sold with no demands for other purchases, but merely offered to existing users at a nominal cost to update and enhance the functionality of their product. It's an important distinction, but one too subtle for the Wikipedia-toting among us.