Psystar still not Back down from Apple!

Not sur ehow long teh MODs will keep this up, but it looks like Psystar are no hurry to back down from the Apple Legal Department.
Follow the links.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...software_hack_to_run_snow_leopard_on_pcs.html

http://store.psystar.com/featured/rebel-efi-preview.html

Be extremely interesting to see how this unfolds.

 

Yes, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Now to be fair, Apple's EULA does state you cannot install OS X on a non Apple machine. If you use their software, that means you are bound to that agreement.

Granted it does not stop everyone, but we aren't going to talk about that here.

Apple has every incentive to defend OS X here. So this is going to be a cat fight to the bitter end.

 

All of your Operating System Belong To Apple.

 

I hope you do notice that Apple's EULA is unfair.
They have no good reason to prevent someone to install a license OS X on PC except to protect their market.

If they do not sell OS X as separate retail software maybe their stand can be justified but no reason if you sell your software separate from the product you can use control where you want it install.
Doesn't seem right.

 

Exactly why their doing it.

 

If Psystar won...
:yes:-Hi I am a PC :wink:-And I am a Mac
-Hey I can install both Windows and OS X so I can be a PC as well
:tongue:-Erm...I can use OS X as well...
-...

 

it's a stretch. sure, if you buy a psystar machine it would probably work well out of the box, but maintaining a OS X-on-PC installation is more work than it is worth. the weirdest part is that psystar's machines aren't amazing deals or anything. honestly, you *almost* might as well just buy an apple.

 

Psystar is a pretty crappy company. They've taken stuff from the people in the OSx86 community and have repackaged it as their own for commercial usage.

 

Both are villains in this case...but Psystar is rather stupid since there are better OS to package.
Apple is the megalomaniac control freak villain while Psystar is a stupid thieving villain that "steal" to sell it for profit.

 

No it doesn't, and this is where the confusion comes for the 'we will defend Apple' sect.

The EULA states, very clearly, you can only install OS X on an Apple-labelled machine. Unambiguous wording. No other reference is made to restrictions thereof.

You get two Apple labels in a retail OS box.

Where Psystar is going, Apple increasingly doesn't have a claim - because the method to hackintosh is currently veering completely away from the original, DMCA-involving effort.

 

Does printing the labels below apply as well?

I mean they look healthier, cheaper and better.

 

No, the capitalisation of Apple in the EULA can only be reasonably interpreted as a label produced by Apple Inc.

Fortunately as I said, you get them in retail OS, iWork, iLife, Box Sets, yada yada...

 

Are we allowed to stick on the labels and claim that we haven't broken a EULA when we install OS X?

 

I don't think sticking a sticker on something counts it as being branded by Apple. If I stick a Apple sticker on my house does that make it a iHouse? No. (Yes I know that's stupid)

 

No. The wording is very specific. Not an Apple Branded computer. An Apple Labelled computer, and no mention is made to the exclusion of other labelling / branding on said computer. The definition of a Label can be absolutely extended to cover the Labels shipped with Apple software.

See above. The upcoming hackintoshing methods seem to comply fully with other aspects of the EULA.

Quite apart from this, I find it somewhat laughable and typical of the Apple masses that we're getting this involved in defending Apple's EULA. Hands up how many of you paid for a full retail copy of Windows when you Boot Camped your machines, as far more explicitly dictated by the Microsoft EULA?

... I thought so

 

Hmm I'm pretty sure it says Apple Branded computer, because I read it before I made the last post.

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

If it said labeled, I would agree that sticking a sticker on it may be a work around.

 

Ah. Interesting. Here's what I have in my latest Box Set.

The PDF wording makes it more ambiguous - but a (admittedly) more tenuous link can be made to the Apple label since it is Apple branding, and the EULA does not specify it as the only branding on the machine.

And of course, nevertheless, the former point about EULAs applies to you lot.

 

Hmm, Interesting, so it looks like they solved the problem by updating the EULA.

 

As I said, it's open to the same interpretation.

 

from reading the EULA, it is pretty clear to me that any form of hackintosh, including psystar, is in direct violation of that EULA.

however, breaking an EULA is not necessarily against the law. nevertheless, this isn't an appropriate topic for these forums.

mod close thread?

 

The meddler in me is naturally drawn towards building a hackintosh, and every six months or so I get the urge to make one. I add up the costs, factor in the amount of time, and then minus the grief I will get from the wife, and every time I get the same answer.... there just isn't a big enough financial gap to warrant the effort. Maybe if your looking at building a Mac Pro type system then maybe the savings could be had, but at the bottom end the margins are just so tight that a 2nd hand mini or mb, are about the same cost.
a


a

 

Probably. The key for me is trying to come up with a machine that runs OS X better than the glorified home computer that is the Pro, and a mobile computer that's more useful to me in terms of reliability / build quality and more genuinely compatible with a Windows dual-boot environment than the Macbook Pro/Airs. It's not like I need an industrial computer - the HP and Dell workstations work just fine in my environment, and there are much better machines in terms of actual roadability than the Apple poseur tools.

 

The 'we must defend Apple' camp always says this. And I'll do the classic thing of Apple fanbois and say 'where's the proof' (minus the foaming at the mouth of course).

There are plenty of areas, including my hands up instance before, where EULA's are creatively interpreted with no uproar. Why just Apple?

 

among the educated, there is really no argument about whether or not hackintosh breaks the EULA of OS X.

an apple labeled computer is a system labeled by apple. the end. the same is true of an apple branded computer. this is overtly clear. you can loosely interpret the EULA if you like, but then you have a loose interpretation. An EULA is a legal document, a contract, and is not intended to be interpreted loosely. In a courtroom, it would be interpreted as strictly as possible.

that said, there is no foam in my mouth. if you reread my post, you will notice that i don't actually make a strong stance defending apple.

i know you want me to, so you can attack me, but i still won't.

again-

it is important to note that Apple's EULA may itself break some type of fair use laws, nullifying it. it may also be the case that breaking the EULA may not have significant legal implications. It's just a contract. Contracts are broken all the time and the ramifications are nothing right now because Apple isn't hunting hackintosh users, but even if they tried there would probably be no legal merit to it, mostly surrounding the concept of fair use.

the 'we must always bash apple' camp always makes fun of anyone who doesn't go out of their way to bash apple. there is really nothing I can do about it, except open my mouth to show that there is no foam inside.

of course, they will see foam anyway, just because they don't want to admit they overstepped rationality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

 

I feel I've entered some bizarre alternative dimension where the meaning of 'rationality' is completely different to the norm.

You do understand what I'm questioning, don't you?

No, actually having read the above, you don't. So let me spell it out.

I am questioning the double standards regarding the creative interpretation of (non-enforceable or not, irrelevant) EULAs, specific to Apple in this case, and especially the self-imposed enforcement by Apple Fanbois of this EULA, where they (and other rational individuals across non-Apple products) are perfectly happy to often interpret other EULAs in a creative manner if it is appropriate.

 

i believe forum policy states that we are not supposed to encourage and promote the use of hackintosh, as it violates Apple's EULA. Certain contributors of this thread are doing just that.

mods, please close this thread.

thanks.

 

I'll end it for you, especially as you've ultimately nothing to say beyond platitudes. I'm out of the thread.

 

thanks.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/platitudes.html

 

I'm sure the mods are quite capable of determining when a thread needs to be closed and do not need members to clamor in public like 5yr olds for a thread to be closed because they do not like the topic at hand.

Or you could try PM'ing.....I heard it works wonders.

 

Actually the thing you're supposed to do is hit the little red triangle on the offending post.

But I digress. OSx86 always made me wonder what the point really was. It doesn't have the "just works" kinda mentality, because it's a hack that needs tweaking here and there, nor do you get support from Apple. It's not really cool either, since it's not on a actual Macintosh computer, and in fact might make you look like a poor poser who wants a Mac but can't afford one. None of the Apple users like you because you're breaking the EULA and whatnot. None of the PC users like you because you're putting yourself through a lot of trouble for not a lot of gain (and a lot of PC users just hate Apple users). In fact, it seems like the only real point of OSx86 is to show that "Hey, I can do that!" A Linux based OS with a good compositing windows system will run better, work more seamlessly (with fewer tweaks), and will look just as cool, if not cooler.

But oh well. People will do as they please.

 

Why should the mods close the thread? They had ample time to do so before you posted in here.

I don't see how debating how fair Apple's EULA is promotes OSx86.

You've never used a computer with OSx86 installed, have you?

It's much different than what you make it out to be.

 

to be fair, we weren't even debating on whether apple's EULA is fair. he thought that apple's EULA should be loosely interpreted, so that you shouldn't even think you are breaking the EULA in the first place when you use osx86, because of the meaning behind "labeled" and/or "branded"

then he berated me when i cried "false", and left.

i actually agree that apple's EULA may very well be unfair and that "fair use" may constitute using os x pretty much however you like (including on your own hardware). what is important, and the point i was trying to make originally, is that in the courtroom, no one is loosely interpreting any EULAs. Psystar would get laughed out of the room if they took a stance like that (debating the meaning behind "labeled"), and they aren't stupid, so they didn't take that stance.

Psystar is taking a bolder stance in their lawsuit. Psystar makes the claim that Apple's EULA is being used to abuse copyright, and block fair use and competition. Additionally, (since apple sued them for circumventing the copy protection in os x) they counterclaimed that Apple is wrongly copy protection to infalte the strength of their copyright to further unfair territory.

These arguments are very bold - but more importantly, they actually address the issue at hand, and don't dwell on the nitty language used in the EULA, which is actually very clear.

i hope i made my point?

there is still no foam here.

 

I'm very glad to see that so many members have realised that rules, regulations and laws are not always fair. I'm pleased that, despite going incredibly off topic, this thread has at least had an educational impact on some members.

A thread discussing Psystar's bold moves to defy Apple Inc. is perfectly justifiable. However, a discussion that does nothing but bash members who view Psystar's move negatively or vice versa is heavily frowned upon and will result in disciplinary actions on the accounts of the responsible members.

Please also remember that discussing or promoting methods of hackintosh is strictly against the forum rules.

 

lol idk i anyone made this joke...
since u have windows, ur running boot camp on ur ihouse LOL (sry)

 

Hmm, I don't have a sticker on my house so I don't know if it is a iHouse , but according to other people in this thread technically my Mac (like the sticker) is a Apple product and it is touching my desk which makes it a iDesk and it is touching my floor, which is part of my house so I guess my house is a iHouse.

 

in fact, since your house is touching the ground, and the ground is touch other people's houses, you might even say that everyone in your neighborhood has an Apple labeled computer!

 

I live in the iHood!

 

Hey I know I have a pile of dead UMBP's Ill just remove all the labeling and the LCD cover !!!!

 

I find Psystar's counter suit without merit, Apple has the right to "TRY" and lock OS X the their Hardware, they seem to be reaching..............( As a point of US Law.)

Apple's EULA, does in fact, leave itself very vague, I will admit "Branded" is stronger than "Labeled".

"Originally Manufactured, distributed, and sold by Apple,Inc. and or it's legal agents.", that seems stronger to me.

Apple would be hard pressed to define what constitutes "Branded" or "Labeled", in a Court Of Law.

How much hardware can I upgrade in my Mac, before it's no longer "Apple Branded"?

What if I upgrade the Ram, Video Card, CPU Hard drive?

Bear in mind, the above questions are bait, as soon a Apple replies, it opens up the can of worms.................

So, I can't upgrade the LogicBoard with anything other than an Apple Branded LoBo, if that is the case, why does the EULA not state that?

If it's not in the Contract, IT IS NOT IN THE CONTRACT.

 

the language to me is quite simple.

i think there is some confusion between "having an [insert company name here] label" and the quality of being "[insert company name here] labeled"

the former means that you simply have a label. the latter usage of 'labeled' implies that the action of labeling takes place by the entity preceding it. that implication is not something i am just pulling out of the air - it is english.

however- you do raise a good point about part changing. it seems straightforward to me that changing the video card, cpu, or hard drive doesn't constitute losing the apple labeled-ness.

but what if you kept the motherboard, and changed the case, then later perhaps in a separate upgrade, you changed the motherboard, and kept the new, already changed case?

at what point, if any, would such a computer lose its apple labeled-ness?

 

That in itself becomes the "Slippery Slope" or loop hole, in wording the EULA with "Labeled" or "Branded".

You know those OEM Windows Install Disks, you can buy them and use them IF you Buy Hardware with them.

But, I won't beat a dead horse, Psystar, as far as I am aware, did not try to use this Loop Hole or have they tried this "Slippery Slope" argument.

I don't think at this point that they could, had they Sold all their Units with a Apple Keyboard, or some other (Originally Manufactured, distributed, and sold by Apple,Inc. and or it's legal agents) product..................

So to the topic of the thread, I think Psystar will LOSE, I just have not seen anything that gives them a legal leg to stand on.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the Wording of OS X EULA, we both have valid points, none of them have much to do with Psystar, and I think it draws to the Larger question of ALL EULA's.

I think the US Supreme Court will one day Rule on some of these EULA issues, but I don't think it will have anything to do with Psystar.