[Wondercow]

Macworldfan said:

Anyway, how's the Axiotrion's Mac tablet deal different from Psystar's? I mean it looks like a whole different machine running Mac OS X and it seems to me that they've remove everything that says Apple from it. (Logos, etc.).

It's simple: Axiotron takes hardware and modifies it.

When I buy a computer I own the hardware and can do with it as I wish. I can use it as is, cover the case with stickers, cover the case with Sharpie, drop it on my head or out a window, sell it, give it, or burn it. No matter what I do to my Mac it remains an official, licensed Apple Mac (even if it no longer resembles one). So there's nothing wrong with what Axiotron does since they take legally purchased Macs and mod the hardware.

[fletc3her]

I honestly think Psystar is another one of these front companies created by Microsoft to cause problems for the competitors. First they tried to cause FUD for Linux and now they are trying to do the same to Apple. I wish they would try to compete with good software rather than using these legal shenanigans.

[Wondercow]

fletc3her said:

I honestly think Psystar is another one of these front companies created by Microsoft to cause problems for the competitors. First they tried to cause FUD for Linux and now they are trying to do the same to Apple. I wish they would try to compete with good software rather than using these legal shenanigans.

While I agree that they do seem to be funded--at least--by someone else I doubt it's MS. Should Psystar win MS will lose BIG when everyone and anyone can sell a MacOS computer.

[DizDave79]

Well who am I to say Apple is a monopoly or not (it's their baby) but the only outcome I was hoping for is more price/performance for my dollar in comparison to other companies offerings. This is why the Hackintosh community is bursting wide open because most of us don't need a $3,000 tower or an overpriced non-portable laptop in the iMac. (Don't get me started on the mac mini...) and creative pros need more than the current macbook pro's offer. (for 2x the cost of an equivilant desktop)

When we can get a $1,500 Mac with a C2D Quad, two hard drive bays, a real video card and desktop parts then companies like these (and the need to have hackintosh clones) will fade away into obscurity. Give people what they want and make everyone happy right? :p

(I can dream, can't I?)

[People_Eater]

TheUpbeatPenguin said:

Psystar is in the wrong, and they exist only to make a quick buck off of those people who believe they can get the Mac experience without the Mac price, instead of using Linux or suffering with that other operating system.

I very much doubt that Psystar is interested in making money by selling Mac clones. Rather, I think that this kind of lawsuit is the goal of the company, and the clone sales are just a means to get the court case. Psystar is possibly secretly supported by one or more of Apple's competitors. Apple's legal filings hint at this. I think it's a way to put a chink in Apple's armor, to make way for future attempts at exploitation of Apple's IP.

[davekriss93]

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about copyright on the part of their legal advisers.



Nicely put. I think--to put it in less refined terms--what it shows is a dying animal struggling for life. Or perhaps a 4-year old trying to negotiate with his parents to get his toy back after it was taken away because he did something bad. The 4-year old's logic is, shall we just say, flawed. :)

[medienhexer]

first, I too think that OSX boxes are rather an update than a full version.
I really wouldn´t mind people hackintoshing their PCs. I can´t blame them. But a company making money with hacking... nah, that doesn´t sound right to me.
Is it legal to restrict the use of your product? I do think so. Nobody can make Sony license their walkman OS to some cheap hardware maker so they can profit from other people´s work.
But my main concern is people buying Psystar´s stuff and running to Apple for support. Because... "Apple is the maker of OSX. right? So they´re responsible for making their OS work. On Psystar hardware that I bougt it with, right?".
And there you have it. OSX runs beautifully on Apple hardware. Except for those cases who complain in forums. Or my dad. Now factor in the hackintoshs. That would be one PR nightmare.
I´m not happy with the premium prices, BUT on the other hand I´ve never been as productive with a windows machine. So if I take all the time I wasted pulling out hardware components off my PC , reinstalling, knocking on wood and crossing my fingers, multiplied by let´s say 1 Dollar an hour... well, I could have afforded a mac from the start.

[dennishenley]

>>The first sale doctrine
Doesn't the first sale doctrine apply to things you buy as opposed to license/lease? By now everyone knows that you do not buy software; you merely license it's use. In fact, the makers of Rosetta Stone language training software successfully use this argument to prevent people from selling their discs on ebay and other public sites.
If this case makes any headway, I'd think other software vendors would be disturbed because it will raise the EULA issue again. Some law experts feel that the EULA is non-binding because the user has to open the software to read it. A lot of stores won't accept returns on opened software and that essentially forces the user to accept the EULA sight unseen. If you've opened it, read it, and disagree with it and want to return the software, you're pretty much stuck.
I wonder if this will lead Apple to requiring the use of serial numbers and online activation for their OS? The online activation could check the chip and see if the OS is truly on a Mac...

[MacEdge]

Psystar says "Psystar distributes computers with legitimately purchased copies of Mac OS loaded thereon," the company said. "Many of those copies [were] directly obtained from Apple."
They should stop right there because it is a lie. Reviewers reported their computers shipped with a sealed copy of OS X. Unless Psystar has a breakthrough technology you have to load the disc into the computer, the copy on the computer was a copy created by Psystar without the consent of Apple. That act requires a license it could even be considered piracy. The sealed copy also affords the computer buyer the opportunity to resell their copy as new causing Apple financial harm. There is no way these guys should win.

[mrbach]

Lot's of people defending Apple here, but I have to say, I think if you buy a copy of the software, you should be able to do what you want with it.
I for one, would like to build my own "Hackintosh", and not be confined to the limited, pricey, Apple options.
I was able to upgrade my PC recently to a decent C2D with 4 Gigs of RAM and a nice graphics card for under $400. This machine is fully capable of running OSX, but I built it for games (GTA4).
This is no different than being able to play your music on whatever device you want. You buy a license for music, but have the freedom to play it on whatever you device you want. The Apple hardware limitation simply forces people to pay for higher priced equipment. They would never be able to charge double for iPods and force people to play iTunes music on iPods exclusively.
I am an Apple user of over 25 years, but I think Psystar is right and I hope they win.

[bigh]

xStep, I believe the process of installing a retail copy of OS X still requires a bootloader that keeps the "don't steal Mac OS" extension from loading. Even though it's indirect, I believe this would be seen legally as modifying the OS and breaking a copyright measure, which is illegal under the Millenium Copyright Act..
As for the Axiotron ModBook, I imagine that they have permission from Apple. If not, then they can claim that they're just modifying hardware, which is not prohibited. Either way, it's not the same as what Psystar is doing.
As for the legal experts in this forum, keep in mind that there are many of us that depend on Copyright law for our livelihood. It's not unrealistic to expect a high percentage of Mac users to be informed in regard to copyright... the platform is a popular choice with creatives and programmers, all interested in copyright issues.

[chuckbo]

Psystar = SCOs

Next thing you know, Microsoft will be purchasing Psystar systems to bolster their claim and arrange funding for their defense.

[Wondercow]

mrbach said:

Lot's of people defending Apple here, but I have to say, I think if you buy a copy of the software, you should be able to do what you want with it.

As you note below, you don't buy the software, you licence its use.

Quote

I for one, would like to build my own "Hackintosh", and not be confined to the limited, pricey, Apple options.

And I'd like to experience space travel for the low, low price of $1.99. Too bad we don't always get what we want.

Quote

This is no different than being able to play your music on whatever device you want. You buy a license for music, but have the freedom to play it on whatever you device you want.

If Philips wanted to keep the CD format closed they could have. If a copyright holder of a musical piece wants to impose a condition on the playback of their art they can. The fact that people or companies generally choose not to do such things has no bearing on the rights of another company to do such things.
>The Apple hardware limitation simply forces people to pay for higher priced equipment.
No it doesn't. People have plenty of choice in computer makers and vendors.
>They would never be able to charge double for iPods and force people to play iTunes music on iPods exclusively.
Isn't that exactly what they did? There were (and are) plenty of complaints by people who think that iPods are overpriced.

Quote

I am an Apple user of over 25 years, but I think Psystar is right and I hope they win.

You seem to want Psystar to win because A) you want to build a hackentosh and B) "music can be played on any player so why can't I have the MacOS on non-Apple hardware?" Just because you want a lower-priced Mac doesn't mean that you are entitled to one; it's Apple's prerogative to run their business as they see fit--within the bounds of the law, of course. The judge in this case has already upheld that it's Apple's right to bundle their OS with their hardware.

[orgopete]

Through all of this, I still find it hard to foresee the final answer. On my skiing lift ticket it says that it contains a contract between myself and the resort. It further states that by skiing at the resort, I am accepting the risks and agree not to sue the resort for any negligence, not mine or the resorts. And, if I decide to sue the resort, I agree that I will only sue them in the court of common pleas in the county or the local US district court.

I am standing in the middle of a trail, in plain sight, and the only skier on the trail. A snowmobile operated by the resort comes up the trail, hits me, and breaks my leg. Can I sue them? Does the contract hold? It says I have agreed to not hold them liable.

It is a free country, I can sue them. Will I win? Will the court uphold the contract? Can a resort be held liable for its negligence?

Is the Apple agreement similar?

I expect this is be complicated. The Rosetta Stone license seems more like a movie or music. Here it seems sensible for a user to be allowed to play a licensed movie on his iPod, DVD player, or his computer. He could even store it on his computer for his personal use. He should not be allowed to write DVDs that he sells on the street corner. The Apple OS doesn't seem like a movie. It isn't a play it once deal. It seems more like other software. Adobe limits the number of computers you can run their software on. It has reasonable rights to the license and its transfer.

As I look at this and I am not a lawyer, the court seems to protect creators of property from financial losses. Creators of movies are hurt by piracy. A ski resort can be held liable for its negligence if it causes injury to others. If this were so, then Apple can write on its software that it can only be used on Apple hardware. It can state this is a contract or license for its use. Apple can bring a lawsuit against such individuals. However, just because a manufacturer writes a patent pending on an article or writes that it is protect by a patent number, such notices do not determine the rights protecting that article. Pending means there is no patent in force and a patent number may be a ruse or have expired. They may be used to scare competitors away.

If the court looks at this from that perspective, then it would seem that Psystar would have a right, as you and I would, to buy a copy of Apple's software and use it as we wished, provided we did not attempt to sell it or use it to create something that could be used to compete with or defraud Apple computer. If you were a hobbyist, you could try to reverse engineer it for the fun of it on your PC. You can legally inlock your cell phone. If that is true, then can Apple prove to the court that Psystar has caused financial losses to Apple by purchasing the software from Apple? I will surprised to find that the court would enforce an order that specified that if you bought a copy of OS X and did not own an Apple computer, that you would be obligated to purchase same.