[Macworld]

Post your comments for Mac clone maker Psystar claims it bought OS X from Apple here

[vfx2k4]

What's funny is how much Psystar keeps flapping its gums as it is obviously on a collision course with a devastating court ruling and bankruptcy.

[TheUpbeatPenguin]

"Psystar distributes computers with legitimately purchased copies of Mac OS loaded thereon," the company said. "Many of those copies [were] directly obtained from Apple."
OS X is not sold. It is licensed. The terms of the purchased license say that it is not to be run on non-Apple hardware. In addition, the OS itself, if it was sold with the necessary boot code to be run without modification, would run about $350. The discs from an Apple store don't contain the ROM code from an Apple computer, and assume that the purchaser already has such a machine to install the software on, so that the OS discs are essentially "upgrades" that can be sold for less money. The key thing is that Psystar would need to reverse-engineer the copyrighted boot code (hard, illegal) or modify the OS (much easier, still illegal) to work on generic hardware. This entire case seems to be a no-brainer to me. 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. The sooner this little company dies, the better.
Go away, Psystar.

[beeble42]

Psystar purchased a license to use OS X. They are in breach of that license. When you buy software or music or a dvd you're actually purchasing a license to use that copyrighted material in the way in which the copyright owner authorises you to use it. You can't buy a DVD of Spiderman and then do a public performance because the license on that retail copy doesn't allow for it. You'll end up in court and you'll loose. Just like Psystar will.
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding about copyright on the part of their legal advisers.

[TeaEarleGreyHot]

vfx2k4 writes:
> What's funny is how much Psystar keeps flapping its gums as it is obviously on a collision course with a devastating court ruling and bankruptcy.
[/quote]
One perspective is "If you're falling off a cliff, you might as well try to fly!"


Personally, I think the issue of a software vendor prohibiting the buyer from installing it on the platform of their choice via EULA is akin to a bookstore saying you are only allowed to read the book in bed and not in the livingroom, or to a hardware store saying you cannot use the wrench on your automobile, only in the kitchen. Admittedly, there are other examples of devices being sold "for novelty purposes only," presumably because they have not been properly tested as medical devices, and even of garden seeds sold as "not for feed, food, or oil," presumably because they have pesticide coatings. But in those cases, the end-user-license intends to shift responsibility for misuse to the consumer and off the manufacturer. In the case of software, it's not a liability or safety disclaimer, it's being used for monopolistic purposes, which I think is wrong.


-----
"Break up giant corporations! A company that is 'too big to fail' is TOO BIG, even after being bailed out!" --Me.

[Wondercow]

TeaEarleGreyHot said:

it's being used for monopolistic purposes, which I think is wrong.

Apple may seem monopolistic but the court already ruled on that and dismissed it. By your line of thinking Wii games shouldn't be tied to the Wii console, etc, etc.

[dean_o]

I'm not sure a license agreement is the same as law. Apple may sell it's OS with a EULA, and they can try to make it stick. However, if the EULA itself isn't legal, is it enforceable? I'm no expert, but I find it hard to believe that an illegal contract is binding. That appears to be Psystar's argument. They're saying that the EULA itself is in violation of copyright law.
I don't know enough about this stuff to know whether Psystar is in the right or not. I suspect that more than one or two of the "legal experts" who have posted here don't know any more about it than I do. I know it's hard to believe, but occasionally Apple is wrong.
If Apple's EULA violates copyright law, then they should lose. If Psystar is wrong, then they should lose. Unfortunately, I fear that intellectual property law has become so unbalanced in favor of big corporate copyright holders that the outcome is inevitable regardless of the merits of Psystar's case.

[Macworldfan]

Don't wanna get too much into this legal mumbo-jumbo; however, I'm one of those who would want a netbook running Mac OS X now; even if it is from another PC manufacturer. But can't get it now because Apple doesn't want to make it and it won't license it's OS. :-(
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.).

[NCAMILO]

I agree completely.

I'm surprised at the incredible number of copyright law experts in this forum.

[bonesb]

There's a few really good posts about the nature of the license and Apple hardware, they all make perfect sense to me. I'm only writing here because Psystar's "offering" is really a sandwich - a hamma hamma hamma and cheese sandwich, washed down with a little whine...
Yeah, don't quit my day job...

[powerbook3]

When Psystar refers to the "first sale" doctrine, Apple still manages the OS through updates and services.

[context]

NCAMILO said:

I'm surprised at the incredible number of copyright law experts in this forum.

I was also thinking that. But then I thought I might have stumbled onto a blog full of lawyers who represent Apple.

[xStep]

TheUpbeatPenguin,

The OS is publicly available from Apple. It is open source. Sure, some of Apple's custom code may not be included. The OS does not include the Cocoa frameworks. The firmware EFI code (where the motherboard boot code sits) is a public standard and has been used to make a 'Hackintosh' without any OS hacks. See that link on some of the legal issues too.

Also, from what orifice did you find that $350 value. Only Apple can tell you what they would find reasonable to charge if they ever chose to sell OS X for other non-Apple branded PCs.

[Wondercow]

dean_o said:

I'm not sure a license agreement is the same as law.

It is if the contract itself doesn't violate any law. (OK, it's still not "law" but it enforceable under contract law and will be considered legally binding. )
>Apple may sell it's OS with a EULA, and they can try to make it stick. However, if the EULA itself isn't legal, is it enforceable? I'm no expert, but I find it hard to believe that an illegal contract is binding.
An illegal contract is, uh, illegal. The illegality of a contract invalidates the agreement. That being said, if clauses A, B, D, and L are deemed illegal (or non-binding for any reason) that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire contract is thrown out, but possibly, and probably, just A, B, D, and L.
>That appears to be Psystar's argument. They're saying that the EULA itself is in violation of copyright law.
Their position is that Apple's EULA violates the first sale doctrine, i.e. the right to resell a legally-acquired copyright work. For example let's say that you own DeanO's Bookstore and you want to sell the latest Harry Potter but the publisher won't allow it because you leaked secrets about the previous Potter title. I buy the latest Potter title from Bob's Books, read it, then sell it to DeanO's Bookstore. You now have the right to resell that copy despite what the publisher wishes. Now, if I stole it from Bob's Books and sold it you the publisher could put an end to that.

But this is only part of Psystar's argument. They further it by claiming that the EULA is wrong in that it requires an "Apple-branded computer" as a prerequisite for installation of the OS. I can't see this part being struck down on copyright grounds since it was already upheld on Psystar's previous attempt to countersue on abuse of monopoly grounds.

Quote

I don't know enough about this stuff to know whether Psystar is in the right or not.

They're not ;-)
>Unfortunately, I fear that intellectual property law has become so unbalanced in favor of big corporate copyright holders that the outcome is inevitable regardless of the merits of Psystar's case.
Take off the tinfoil hat ;-)