Apple Asks Judge To Shutter Psystar's Clone Unit

CWmike writes "Apple wants a federal judge to shut down Psystar's Mac clone operation and order the company to pay more than $2.1 million in damages, according to court documents. The move was the first by Apple since US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar violated Apple's copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when it installed Mac OS X on clones it sold. Alsup's Nov. 13 order, which granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and quashed Psystar's similar request, was a crushing blow to the Florida company's legal campaign. In a motion filed Monday, Apple asked Alsup to grant a permanent injunction that would force Psystar to stop selling any computer bundled with Mac OS X; using, selling or even owning software that lets it crack Apple's OS encryption key to trick Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware; and 'inducing, aiding or inducing others in infringing Apple's copyright.'" Groklaw has summarized Apple's request as well, and noted that Apple has also filed a motion to dismiss Psystar's litigation in Florida (or transfer it to California, where the above injunction was filed).

Comments

It's ok

[pigphish]

Apple did it so it can't be bad

Re:It's ok

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like Apple here is a simple solution for you: don't buy their products. Duh.

Re:It's ok

[pigphish]

I never do never will

but I do point out when a company continuously acts like a fool. The bigger fools of course are the users who overpay and support it because they like having a more closed system as long as the interface is shinier.

Re:It's ok

[Monkeedude1212]

I wouldn't call them fools if their business strategy makes them alot money.

I don't like the way they do things either, but all in all, they picked a route - stuck to it - and have generally been flawless in its execution.

As you said, the fools are the ones buying the product, but if its what they want, who am I to argue?

Re:It's ok

[Stuart Gibson]

Please explain to me why I am a fool for buying the system that best enables me to do my work? I have, at various times, primarily used Windows, Linux and OSX and, currently, OSX is the system that works best for me. Considering the price differences amount to a couple of hours pay yet the productivity gains amount to more than that every month, wouldn't I be a fool *not* to use it?

Re:It's ok

[pigphish]

Since you didn't post to my Apple bashing anonymously, I will explain myself...

My impression and limited experience of Mac users has been folks who genuinely think Apple is innovative. I believe they are not. They take existing technology and perhaps make it more mature by adding a good interface to it. I give them credit for making things like mp3 players more mainstream but they did it by trying to pushing their own format. In the end they are bad for the industry and I am glad their strategy of keeping everything closed failed the last time around they were a heavy player.

Very simply, if "Apple" in the article was replaced with the less word hip "Sony" all the Apple fans would not be happy.

Re:It's ok

[Monkeedude1212]

In the end they are bad for the industry

Well now I wouldn't say THAT. I think the more and more Apple pushes that everything must be what they say, the more and more people want to go against that. Which will, of course, lead to cases like THIS, where they try to crack the OS.

And When Apple Cracks down on those people - 2 things will happen.

People will end up purchasing a Mac with OS X from an Apple store, OR

People will end up purchasing a computer and putting a different operating system on it. And if wanted OS X to get away from Windows, maybe they'll hear about Ubuntu instead?

Re:It's ok

[mrsquid0]

It is not Apple's products that I have a problem with. For the most part Apple makes extremely good stuff. The problem with Apple is its corporate behaviour.

Re:It's ok

[Again]

You can call the users fools if you want but a lot are quite simply desperate. A lot of people have had bad experiences with Windows (cue people saying that Windows works for them) and they are desperate to buy something else. And Mac happens to be that something else.

We could have an entire discussion about why exactly people have bad experiences with Windows. But the reasons are irrelevant. A lot of people (fools as you call them) are willing to pay a lot for something that is not Windows.

Re:It's ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, you're such a fool.

Re:It's ok

[CowboyBob500]

Two words - Logic Studio

(Don't mention Ardour either, because as good as it is, it's nowhere near Logic)

Re:It's ok

[jo_ham]

That's an awfully big generalisation to make about people who buy Apple products.

Am I to infer that you run some flavour of Linux because you are just too cheap to spend money on software and hardware that works for you?

Re:It's ok

[NiceGeek]

"but they did it by trying to pushing their own format" - MPEG-4 is *not* Apple's format.

Re:It's ok

[Monkeedude1212]

Hey, I got a $6000 Mac Pro to run Windows 7 so that I can run the Software (Visual Studio) I want to on the hardware (2 Quad Cores) I want to. I do it using Bootcamp, with full legit copies of the Operating Systems.

And I'll be honest, I don't think all Mac users are fools*. As much as I know about the Music and Video industry, which is very little, I understand that Macs are quite popular in that regard. I personally don't use that software so I wouldn't know how well it performs. I'm sure for those people who do that kind of stuff a Mac shines in every aspect and is worth every penny.

The fools I'm referring to are the people who got an iPod because they thought it was the only thing of its kind. Or the ones who bought a Macbook Air and keep it at home to surf the web. Or the kind who purchased a Mac to say they have a Mac. There alot of people like that out there. When there are far cheaper options to fit their needs, and I mean FAR cheaper. There are 8 Gig MP3 players going for 60 dollars, where an 8 Gig iPod Nano goes for over 100.

But - if White coloured headphones are crucial, thats the consumers choice to make.

*I'm probably the biggest fool of them all, for buying a Mac Pro when I PROBABLY could have built a comparable rig myself for half the price. Oh well.

PS - As for Linux, I only run that stuff on my Original Xbox, PS3, and a home-server. It's rarely used as much as a "Linux User" uses Linux.

Re:It's ok

[ColdWetDog]

It is not Apple's products that I have a problem with. For the most part Apple makes extremely good stuff. The problem with Apple is its corporate behaviour.

So, Windows, Oracle, Sun, IBM, Intel, Micron, the entirety of China have OK corporate behavior? So you're posting on a 1982 Morrow Micro Decision? Or something you built in your basement?

Get over it.

Re:It's ok

[jo_ham]

Fair enough, but it was still something of a generalisation.

Incidentally, the white headphones are terrible.

Re:It's ok

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he is talking about the "FairPlay" iTunes DRM encryption ensuring you could only playback the music files using Apple hardware products.

Re:It's ok

[Barsteward]

According to the latest reliability charts, Apple hardware is the expensive and unreliable choice. The premise that Apple sells you "quality" hardware is fast losing traction.

Re:It's ok

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have one HELL of a job if the price difference between a PC and a comparable Mac is only a couple of hours pay.

Re:It's ok

[Dogtanian]

Incidentally, the white headphones are terrible.

I thought the white headphones were okay for earbuds. Not a pad on my large padded headphones I have at home, but passable.

I actually dislike the white headphones because of their appearance. Firstly because it makes me look like a wannabe-fashionable tosser buying Apple to look cool. (*) Secondly, because I'm more worried about it making me a target for a thief/mugger on dark winter evenings.

I have a pair of really cheap black ones that don't seem to give as much sound output with my EU-volume-limited iPod at max stength- a problem with outside noise. So I'm still using the white ones... though I'll probably buy another pair, and when I do, they won't be white.

(*) I say "wannabe" because IMHO they could have the opposite effect. Since I don't normally dress or look that sharp, simply having an iPod isn't going to make me a fashion god. I don't think that, and I doubt most people do- but wearing the white headphones they might think that *I'm* under that impression... which would make me a wannabe loser. Personally, I dislike the damn white headphones because I don't like Apple's image- the electronics equivalent of Gap ten years ago- and the damn things are so ubiquitous (every man and his dog has an iPod) that they aren't that cool anyway- again, Gap ten years ago.

Re:It's ok

[Hamsterdan]

Applies to about every other company. almost any consumer device today is cheap, of a doubtful quality and disposable.

My dad's VCR is beginning to show its age (it's 22 years old), but that thing is built like a brick. Yes it's a front-load with HI-FI and everything, but it was expensive. Today, you would be lucky to find one that lasts more than a couple years.

A more recent example, Printers. My first inkjet was a Deskjet 500C. That thing was a TANK. virtually undestructible. Today, it's less expensive to buy a new one then change cartridges.

Laptops? I've recently found an old Toshiba T1800 (386 monochrome), and the way its built, I could use it as a traction-aid and it probably would still work. Newer laptops will break if looked at too often.

Everything is disposable now. Lower quality, made in CHINA cheap stuff.

Re:It's ok

[Lars T.]

but I do point out when a company continuously acts like a fool. The bigger fools of course are the users who overpay and support it because they like having a more closed system as long as the interface is shinier.

I notice you don't call Psystar fools for selling overpriced PCs and Software that is nothing but slightly changed Open Source for quite some money (and of course don't make available source code).

Re:It's ok

[Lars T.]

My impression and limited experience of Mac users has been folks who genuinely think Apple is innovative. I believe they are not. They take existing technology and perhaps make it more mature by adding a good interface to it. I give them credit for making things like mp3 players more mainstream but they did it by trying to pushing their own format.

Oh? And what would that format be? MP3? Later AAC? Or did the introduction of the iTunes (Music) Store with DRM make the iPod "more mainstream"? Are you telling us they should have used the "open" WMA with DRM on the iPods?

Re:It's ok

[Lars T.]

I think he is talking about the "FairPlay" iTunes DRM encryption ensuring you could only playback the music files using Apple hardware products.

Let's assume that you weren't implying that PCs running Windows are "Apple hardware products". So what, if you can only play songs with FairPlay on iPods - Apple never promised anything else. But before the iTMS, you could only buy music online from site that sold obscure indy music, from Russian sites of dubious legality, and about a dozen stores with a rather small catalogue selling songs in WMA with a much worse DRM than FairPlay that most MP3 players couldn't play.

Re:It's ok

[Lars T.]

And again you don't call the companies a fool who couldn't be bothered with trying to sell their wares to anyone but some computer geeks. Instead it's the people who didn't dig through the last pages of Computer Shopper to find an add advertising something that could play "MP3s" (whatever that is).

Re:It's ok

[dontmakemethink]

Interesting choice of example, since Logic is Mac-only for the sole reason that Apple bought eMagic. Prior to that Logic was also available for Windows. The windows Logic users were left high and dry with no further updates or support whatsoever. Think about it - Logic for Windows was a $399 piece of software. It was also rather unorthodox, leaving users to learn entirely new audio software. Very few were of a mind to buy a Mac I assure you.

I find it ironic that a Mac user would be proud of Apple for some of its most anti-competitive behaviour, especially in this thread of all places. Apple quashing Psystar is completely legal and IMO justified, but it's nothing to be proud of.

Re:It's ok

[dontmakemethink]

However, you have to pay much more than the workflow gains to get the matching iPod, monotone wardrobe, VW Beetle, and remodel your home in minimalist fashion with Ikea furnishings.

In the end, anarchy never pays. Your denial shall soon consume you, if it hasn't already.

Re:It's ok

[NiceGeek]

Of course that isn't even true nowadays, most of iTunes music is DRM free.

Re:It's ok

[mrsquid0]

What part of this is a troll? The part where he says that Apple makes great products, or the part where he says that Apple is slimy? Both parts are true. Where are the meta mods when we need them?

Re:It's ok

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed]

Maybe in the days of the 1G iPod, but since Creative has handed Apple the MP3 market for anything but stuff less than 4GB trinkets, essentially the iPod and the Zune are the only games in town for serious music libraries above 50 gigs. (Oh, don't bother mentioning the Archos line. If I wanted a music player the size of a netbook, I'd have bought a netbook and a high capacity SDHC card.)

Re:It's ok

[mjwx]

As you said, the fools are the ones buying the product, but if its what they want, who am I to argue?

My problem is when these fools try and convince me they are not fools or worse yet try and convince non foolish people to follow their foolishness.

Re:It's ok

[reidconti]

As you said, the fools are the ones buying the product, but if its what they want, who am I to argue?

My problem is when these fools try and convince me they are not fools or worse yet try and convince non foolish people to follow their foolishness.

My problem is when fools try to convince me I'm foolish! Can't they see what fools they are?

Re:It's ok

[StuartHankins]

Based on Sony's rootkit incidents, I most certainly would respond differently if Sony was involved.

The Apple stuff meets my needs, YMMV. <shrug> If it doesn't work there are a lot of other vendors out there.

Re:It's ok

[Anonymous Coward]

My impression and limited experience of people who stereotype 'Mac users' is that they are fat smelly nerds who spend all day sitting in their own filth. Girls won't go near them. Their teeth look like old gravestones, sticking out this-way and that, covered in moss and slime. Their breath reeks of a charnel house.

See, two can play at that game.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Apple doesn't make all copies of OS X upgrade licences, considering you need an existing Mac (which comes with OS X) to install it on. Then it would be flat-out illegal to make a hackintosh, even for your own use.

Oh, and your Sony reference is stupid. If Sony produced an OS update for the PS3 that sold for $30, and someone made and sold a PS3 clone that ran said update, Sony would have them boiled in oil, and rightly so! As much as I dislike some of Sony's past behaviour, I for one would like to be admitted to said perp-frying, so that I could savour the smell of crispy burning stupidity.

Re:It's ok

[StuartHankins]

If you bought a Mac Pro primarily to run Windows, you missed the point. The Apple solution only makes sense if your primary OS is OS X, otherwise you are absolutely correct that you can buy cheaper hardware for Windows.

That's not to say the Apple hardware is poor quality, it's just that the combination of OS X + the hardware is what you're paying for.

Re:It's ok

[falconwolf]

The windows Logic users were left high and dry with no further updates or support whatsoever.

Just as Adobe left Mac users high and dry. Try to get 64 bit Photoshop CS for OS X. Oops, it's only available for Windows even though Leopard which was released more than 2 years ago is capable of running 64 bit apps. CS4 was released a year after Leopard.

Think about it - Logic for Windows was a $399 piece of software.

And Photoshop alone cost almost twice that.

I find it ironic that a Mac user would be proud of Apple for some of its most anti-competitive behaviour

What anti-competitive behavior is that? All Apple does is try to stop people from installing OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple doesn't prevent people from installing Windows or Linux on PCs. Apple even allows people to install both on Macs. Where is this anti-competitive behavior?

Falcon

Re:It's ok

[falconwolf]

My problem is when these fools try and convince me they are not fools or worse yet try and convince non foolish people to follow their foolishness.

And of course you or those who think like you get to define who and what fools are?

Falcon

Re:It's ok

[falconwolf]

According to the latest reliability charts, Apple hardware is the expensive and unreliable choice.

Citation needed!

Let's see what Google returns. Apple's laptops rate 'Better than Average' in reliability study. Macs not all that for reliability. That article puts Dells in the middle with laptop reliability with Macs above them. "For the first time, Apple Inc. dropped out of the top spot in the computer-reliability ranking of Rescuecom Corp., a Syracuse, N.Y.-based chain of service shops, and ended in third place behind a pair of Asian computer makers that specialize in laptops."

Falcon

Re:It's ok

[CowboyBob500]

Irrelevant. I was a musician new to DAW recording and knew nothing of the history. Nor did I care. All I cared about was getting the best DAW package at the best price (£170 for Logic Studio 8 in my case). Since it only runs on a Mac, I bought a Mac too. Given that Logic Studio also includes Mainstage, Waveburner, Soundtrack Pro and whole slew of other utilities, even with the premium price of a Mac this meant great value for money.

To be honest I've never understood the mentality of criticising large companies for their actions. ALL large companies would do exactly what Microsoft and Apple do if they felt they could get away with it. Corporations aren't evil, they just are - and that is just the way things are in a capitalist system.

And as for the fanbois of whatever, that's just illogical. Best tool for the job and all that.

Re:It's ok

[somersault]

The only reason that is the case is because iTunes would have soon died out (or at the least become very crippled) with competition from the Amazon MP3 store, and anyone else who dared to introduce a DRM free service.

Re:It's ok

[somersault]

Where is this anti-competitive behavior?

Pretty sure he was referring to Apple buying "Logic Studio" and then cutting off the Windows line.

Re:It's ok

[mjwx]

And of course you or those who think like you get to define who and what fools are?

Point in case.

Do you see what I have to deal with now.

Re:It's ok

[amoeba1911]

if Microsoft was to make a patch for Windows that made Windows run only on official Microsoft licensed hardware so that people who have Apple Macs can't run Windows on it, there would be a massive uproar and Apple users all over the world would bitch because they can't run the operating system they so desperately try to avoid. Yea... they think they hate Windows, until it's time to do real work: that's when you see all Apple owners resort to running Windows on their super expensive Apple computers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Apples are only good for dicking around and useless for actual work... they say it.

It really doesn't make sense that Apple can legally prevent anyone from running Apple OS on a different hardware than what it was intended for. It would be like saying the music cd's you buy from walmart can only be played in your car's cd player, you are not allowed to play them on your home cd player. That makes no sense. You bought it, you can run it on whatever device can run it.

Re:It's ok

[CherniyVolk]

Very few were of a mind to buy a Mac I assure you.

I challenge this assertion. Some Windows based musicians claim Windows can be used in audio engineering on a professional level.

At Logic's level (You know, real professional studio quality work... Capital Records, Geffen et al), we have voices such as MOTU, Digital Performer and the like. BTW, Digital Performer or Audio Desk is yet to be ported to Windows so while there are *buggy and unreliable* Win32 drivers for MOTU equipment, much of MOTU flag ship software isn't available for Windows.

Most Windows software cited to support Windows role in audio engineering really is... good enough to cut a demo tape. Or, maybe there is one or two software packages that can give it a niche role in a real studio, but not be the computing beef that Macintosh has long traditionally held in this arena.

Inspite of all the craptastic consumer level sound applications like Sound Forge found on Best Buy shelves, when it comes to real audio work, the best analogy would be the gaming market in the late 90s. Linux had more games in the mid to late 90s than Windows ever had in regards to professional audio; not just harddisk recording software but including hardware support.

So, when I hear you say that very few were of a mind to buy a Mac, totally emersed within a culture and profession strongly dominated by Apple... well... such Windows users are indeed "very few" to begin with. But hardly ignorant of their handicap. And speaking of Linux... Linux has some decent software to cut a demo tape. Leaving me feeling rather competitive from a Linux point of view to the audio productivity capable with a Linux box to a Windows box. But, when I bought my MOTU equipment for my guitar work, though I love Linux, I knew that world is dominated by Apple and so I bought a Mac just to run my home studio.

Smells like fags

[Anonymous Coward]

Well ain't Apple full of dicks.

Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.

Apple sells systems. In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari, Apple, Amiga or Commodore computer.

The more you guys push to "free" Mac OS X, the more you guys risk of seeing the opposite laws being written, giving HP, Dell, Acer and others the ability to sign exclusive contracts with Microsoft. No more unlocked computers, no more OSS. Be very, very careful what you guys wish for.

Re:Once again

[ground.zero.612]

Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.

Apple sells systems. In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari, Apple, Amiga or Commodore computer.

The more you guys push to "free" Mac OS X, the more you guys risk of seeing the opposite laws being written, giving HP, Dell, Acer and others the ability to sign exclusive contracts with Microsoft. No more unlocked computers, no more OSS. Be very, very careful what you guys wish for.

Wah wah wah. The copyright laws are fucking ridiculous. Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy.

Would a case against me memorizing my favorite book hold up in court? You can't legally force me to have a lobotomy, and I have an illegal copy of your work in my brain.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.

Apple cannot make any conditions or restrictions on its use after the point of sale. If they didn't make me agree to a restriction
before buying, they are unable to hold me to it afterwards. applE might not like it but where I live the law agrees with me.

The last time I read the aPple license it said the OS must only be sold with an apPle branded computer. Shipping it with an appLe mouse or
something similar would not violate that.

Re:Once again

[Khyber]

"Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy."

Except we already have the exception in the law for that, and it's actually specifically stated.

Re:Once again

[erroneus]

I too found that argument incredulous. Reading software into RAM is how programs are accessed. In fact, the software in question causes this action to happen! Apple should be suing themselves on this basis. I can't begin to imagine what was going on in the mind of the judge who ruled in favor of that argument other than being incapable of understanding that copying code into memory is part of how execution of said code is done in EVERY single case of software execution... (please, no comments related to punch cards, ROM or similar technologies. This is about software that is for sale and run on home computers.)

More and more, special exceptions are being made for software. If this were a case of someone buying a hardware device and connecting it to some other hardware device, these proceedings wouldn't be happening. Someone needs to define for once and for all that publishers cannot tell people how they can or should access the copyrighted material that was legally purchased from the publisher.

On the box of nearly ever food product on the shelf of a grocery store is a "serving suggestion." Imagine their being able to enforce that serving suggestion in a court of law.

Re:Once again

[beatsme]

The most likely result of memorizing a book, and reproducing it by verbalization, unless said book is a novella, is that you would produce a derivative work (ala the Homeric bards), not a 1:1 copy. But please, for the love of the gods, don't sing Happy Birthday or they'll sue.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Apple sell software. If they were really wanted it installed on Crapple devices only, the first thing it would do is ask for your machine's serial number.

Apple zealots like you need to stop taking shit done by this Microsoft V2 personally. They don't give a fuck about you and your gay-clan. You exist to open your purse and line their bank accounts, nothing more. You Apple fanboys remind me of the wife that won't leave the wife-beating husband.

Re:Once again

[Stevecrox]

Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.

Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?

Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux? Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.

Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.

So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.

Re:Once again

[minsk]

Yes, special exceptions are made for software. One of the notable ones is that a legally owned copy may be duplicated into memory for the purpose of running the program. Notice the three words near the beginning which Psystar failed to satisfy.

(not a lawyer, and all that)

Re:Once again

[Stuart Gibson]

Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?

*figures pulled from ass, but not far from reality.

Re:Once again

[ArsonSmith]

I think the difference being that if I have a legal license to run software then I have a legal right to load that software into memory and utilize it as long as the original agreement allows for it.

But...

If i pirate software, then run it I don't have a legal right to have the original copy or the additional copy running in ram.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?

*figures pulled from ass, but not far from reality.

HAH!!!

It's those excessive margins leading to higher prices that makes Apple fanbois feel like they're in some sort of exclusive clique.

"Look what I can afford, and YOU can't!"

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue the bullshit legal "experts" who haven't got a fucking clue what they are talking about.

Re:Once again

[CohibaVancouver]

In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware

Sure they would. In 1980 I had a TRS-80 model I, with two single-density, single-sided floppy drives. When I booted it, I could boot Radio Shack's operating system (TRS-DOS) or one of several alaternates including NEWDOS, LDOS etc.

Re:Once again

[ground.zero.612]

"Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy."

Except we already have the exception in the law for that, and it's actually specifically stated.

I should re-read the Psystar articles again, but I was pretty sure some of the penalties they are facing are because the Judge counted the contents of RAM as an extra copy.

Re:Once again

[WCguru42]

Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.

Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?

I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements. From my perspective it would be detrimental to their business models to place those kinds of restrictions on their products. For Apple it helps their business model and therefore they have included that into the license. You can argue that it might be worthy of anti-trust, might not be the best business model (though evidence points to it being highly effective) or anything else you can think of. The fact that nobody else does this does not mean that it can't be done, just that those other parties haven't found it to be a worthwhile business idea.

Re:Once again

[erroneus]

What three words? "Apple Asks Judge"?

Re:Once again

[derrickh]

GeOS on the Commodore 64 says 'Hi'

D

Re:Once again

[erroneus]

The software loaded onto the Psystar machines were legally paid for. Apple's problem with it is that it isn't being installed onto Apple hardware. This licensing agreement is trying to assert a right of a copyright holder to tell you what you can and cannot do with the works that do not include copying. Copying into RAM does not qualify as a copy as it clearly falls into the realm of making use of the works. It would be like telling someone they can buy a book but cannot read it. A damned stupid argument I'm sure anyone would agree.

Copyright licenses attempt to assert some pretty unfriendly terms of use and the terms keep getting worse and worse. It's about time these creeping terms are hedged off.

Re:Once again

[ground.zero.612]

I guess what I am most confused about is the whole license vs. legal issue.

I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law. If I own the medium the software is contained on, and disagree with the license, which law is on the books that says it's illegal for me to run the software any which way I choose?

In other words, which law is on the books that allows Apple to dictate how I may use their product in the privacy of my own home? AFAIK the only entity that can do that is the FCC because computers emit EMFs that interfere with mediums they regulate. Oh and obviously IANAL.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

You should re-read it. Manually installing a copy of OS X on every computer is time consuming (particularly when it's a hackintosh and needs extra work), so Psystar did it once and then cloned the hard drive. That fucked them over big time.

Re:Once again

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market.

Or IBM OS/360. Or Palm WebOS. Or...

Re:Once again

[maccodemonkey]

While true, Apple is in the same situation. They allow you to run any OS on their hardware you want, but restrict their own OS to their own hardware, much as TRS-DOS would be restricted to Radio Shack hardware.

Re:Once again

[PopeRatzo]

people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.

Do you mean the people who think they should be able to do whatever they want to do with something they bought and paid for? Beyond not making copies and selling them, what right does any vendor have to tell us what we can do with a product we bought?

If I want to buy a copy of OSX and install it on my own hardware, it has nothing to do with copyright. Can you imagine a car company saying "you can buy our car, but only if you use Brand X gasoline. If you put Brand Y gasoline in it, you are violating the user agreement that's printed on the underside of the car in invisible ink that you tacitly agreed to when you walked into the dealership. Oh, and you can only drive on toll roads. And you definitely cannot paint the car any other color or put different hubcaps on it".

Consumers need to get off their knees. Corporations exist for us not the other way 'round.

I may build a hackintosh and give it to someone as a gift if only as a protest to Apple's hostility toward their customers.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you babbling about? There is plenty of information on making a Hackintosh and people do it all the time. Psystar was reselling a hacked version of Mac OS X. No company would allow that to their IP. Apple isn't suing hackers who mod their computers and operating systems, they're suing someone trying to make a buck off their stuff. Big difference.

As usual the idiots at slashdot modded you up to 5 Insightful, for a wrong observation about what is happening.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.

Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?

Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux? Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.

Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.

So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.

Wrong wrong and wrong again.

Can you play Xbox 360 discs on your PC? Can you play PS3 games on your PC? What about Wii? Oh, you mean, they only want you to run the software on their hardware? Right. So, by your logic, if someone sets up a company to sell kit that lets you play Xbox discs on a PC Microsoft will be cool with that? Riiiiight.

Re:Once again

[CohibaVancouver]

much as TRS-DOS would be restricted to Radio Shack hardware.

TRS-DOS wasn't restricted to Radio Shack hardware - It ran on any of the TRS-80 clones, like the LMW-80. Most people ran 'better' OSes like NEWDOS, but if memory serves (and granted it was nearly 30 years ago) there was nothing preventing you from running TRS-DOS on a TRS-80 clone.

Re:Once again

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law.

Maybe if you had lawyers for parents, you wouldn't harbor these misconceptions about the law.

Re:Once again

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

*figures pulled from ass, but not far from reality.

Eww... Remind me to never borrow anything from you, ever.

Re:Once again

[Martin Blank]

I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law.

You were raised incorrectly in that sense, because the law is a whole lot more complicated than that. Try running that line past a judge and see how far it gets you.

(I was raised incorrectly, too. Most of the family still believes in that platitude.)

Re:Once again

[Acapulco]

"legally owned copy" I think...

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

HP UX systems, or any number of other non-Linux Unix platforms.

Re:Once again

[Acapulco]

>>Corporations exist for us not the other way 'round.

I think corporations exists for the shareholders not us...no?

Re:Once again

[theurge14]

It's not about getting software to work in those different ways, it's about changing it, repacking it and selling it on your own hardware.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

"No more unlocked computers, no more OSS."

What have you been smoking, fool? No more OSS? You're living in some kind of a freaking drug induced dream world. Apple, Microsoft, and IBM combined can't buy enough lawyers and judges to end OSS, or to lock up all the computers in the world. It ain't happening.

As for the story at hand - well - psystar should have just sold the freaking EQUIPMENT, and left things at that. People who demanded OS X could have done the dirty deeds themselves. Dummies.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?

No, but that does indicate that there's something wrong.

All the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market often quote how it is a better thing for consumers than lots of regulation. It's true, when lots of competition exists. Ever questioned why that is? Hint: it's not because companies get a high profit margin. On the contrary, it's because prices approach marginal cost

A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market, but due to government protecting Apple's market in the form of enforcing EULAs in court. If you buy Mac OS X, they should have no say what you do with it.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

The more you guys push to "free" Mac OS X, the more you guys risk of seeing the opposite laws being written, giving HP,
Dell, Acer and others the ability to sign exclusive contracts with Microsoft.

I think you pretty much described the current state of affairs, pre- and post-antitrust hearings.

What if they just sold them out of their garage, using ebay? 'Used' systems, no warranty implied. Not the mass market one
would like, but it would be like two men in a garage, in a slightly-evolved-for-21st century scenario.

Re:Once again

[PopeRatzo]

Apple sells systems.

They also sell operating systems without hardware.

Re:Once again

[DarthVain]

Microsoft does in the form of badges or certification.

Vista Approved, Designed for Vista, etc... These come from Microsoft and not the hardware maker.

However for Microsoft they go the opposite route. Rather than trying to restrict it, they label it to hardware that can barely do the job.

Of course this was an Intel/Microsoft clusterfsck, where Intel wanted to sell lots of old crappy motherboards, with terrible crappy integrated video, and Microsoft really wanted to release their new OS.

From some perspective it makes sense for Apple to limit. It keeps idiots from complaining, and most Apple users are idiots (ducks!). For example, if you try and run some software, on hardware that can't handle it, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about, you can come to the definite conclusion that their software must suck because it runs so slow, not that your hardware is obsolete and utter garbage. This works the other way as well. If you try running some horrible bunged up software on some awesome cutting edge hardware, they can come to the conclusion that the hardware clearly isn't powerful and not worth your time.

As I said Apple, knowing their users (idiots), know they do not really want to know all this fiddly stuff like information, and facts, they just want it to "work". They core market isn't interested in hacking OS X onto some crazy hardware. They want to go to iTunes, and buy all their "stuff" at the Apple Store. So it makes sense to limit the functionality, at least from their perspective, as this is the market to which they serve.

Anyway I am jk about the whole idiot thing, I just like stirring the pot... :)

Re:Once again

[gnasher719]

I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law. If I own the medium the software is contained on, and disagree with the license, which law is on the books that says it's illegal for me to run the software any which way I choose?

Part of the purchase agreement is that Apple only sells a box with MacOS X if you agree to the license. Up to the point where you agree to the license, you have a box in your hands that is legally Apple's, and Apple has money in its hands that is legally yours. You have the right to disagree with the license and return the box for a refund.

So before you agree to the license, you have no rights at all. You have the same rights as the postman who delivered the software to your home - he held software in his hands that wasn't his own, he had no right to install it anywhere. After you agree to the license, you agreed. Even Psystar did never, ever argue that Apple's license didn't in principle apply. They only disagreed (strongly) with certain terms in the license, not with the license itself.

Owning the medium of the software clearly means nothing. You could always buy a recordable DVD and make a copy of the software and you would clearly own the medium, but that wouldn't give you any rights either. And you don't own the software: You have a license allowing certain uses, and since you asked, it is _copyright law_ that doesn't allow you to make any copies without permission (license) of the copyright holder.

Re:Once again

[Ihmhi]

Don't large PC manufacturers do something like this for whatever system they're installing?

Surely HP and Dell don't have someone sitting there running the Windows install disc for every machine they crank out.

Re:Once again

[DurendalMac]

I can at least partially agree with this. People in the Hackintosh community should stop cheering for Psystar. Apple doesn't seem to care if hobbyists make their own Hackies. However, if more people keep trying to sell them, then guess what? Apple will not just sue those people out of existence, but they'll also start tightening their grip on OS X. It will get harder and harder to put OS X on a homebuild. So in a sense, I'm glad that Psystar is getting screwed in court. Commercial Hackintoshes are a very bad idea unless Apple officially lets people, although that's bloody unlikely.

That being said, I wish it didn't have to be that way. Apple is a bunch of dicks, but it's been that way for a long time and I doubt it's going to change as long as Steve Jobs keeps getting new organs (the guy is going to look like a Veridian from ST: Voyager in 10 years). I'd love to be able to quickly and easily get OS X on any old PC, but that's not how it is now and we all have to deal with it.

Psystar was a lost cause from the start anyway. Apple can spend more on lawyers than Psystar could gross in a year. They were dead meat from the moment Apple filed suit.

Re:Once again

[andreyvul]

ppc != x86
You'll need to hack an ibm p-series blade server for ps3/x360 code to _somehow_ work.
As opposed to x86 code on an x86 machine.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why this is interesting. You are equating the purchaser's ability to use what they lawfully bought with the ability of Apple to have a high profit margin. I don't think there's any law protecting Apple's profit margin of 30% (or whatever it is). Apple does things like this to prohibit competition because they're margin would come down. But that's free market competition.

Re:Once again

[gyrogeerloose]

Don't large PC manufacturers do something like this for whatever system they're installing?

Sure they do. And they have a license from Microsoft that allows them to do that legally. Apple, on other other hand, did not grant Psystar any sort of license at all to install OS X on their computers, let alone one that allowed them to create cloned copies.

Re:Once again

[jpfreire]

How come 'copying into RAM' doesn't 'qualify as copy' ? It sounds strange to me... How about guns? You have the right to own one(in US), but it's use is restricted: you cant start killing people just because you bought you AK-47 legally. Apple made it too restrictive? Let the market say it so... They've already made iTunes work on Windows...

Re:Once again

[Sj0]

Under that logic, isn't reading a book without an explicit license illegal? After all, you're making a copy in your brain.

Re:Once again

[Amarantine]

Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.

Because MS doesn't sell machines themselves, while Apple does.

Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.

Of course they do, again, Apple sells hardware+software bundles. Apple's business is selling hardware. Of course they want their software running on their own hardware. It is their business model.

Besides, there actually are companies who restrict what their software will run on. I'm pretty sure an Xbox game does not run on a PS3. I know they are totally incompatible on many levels, but if they were compatible, you'd have the same discussion.

Just because something is *technically* possible, does NOT mean it is legal, or should be.

If i decide to build some kind of highly specialised medical software, and decide to bundle it exclusively on x86-hardware i sell with my own label, just for performance assurance, does that mean somebody else can tear it apart and re-sell my software on their own systems?

Re:Once again

[jpmorgan]

You're right, there is an explicit exemption in copyright law that SHOULD render EULAs worthless. Unfortunately, judges have been ignoring that part of the law for years, and in a common-law legal system, precedent is king.

Re:Once again

[__aasqbs9791]

He's saying it doesn't count because it is literally a requirement to use any software. There is no other way to run software other than copying it into RAM, and therefore you don't require an exception to copyright law, as such an exception is assumed when you buy it.

Re:Once again

[denis-The-menace]

When the Ghost cloning utility started, they did *NOT* get approval from MS.
MS was even denying support for systems that were cloned with Ghost or equivalent.

Today, MS has their own utility that does the same thing.

Re:Once again

[jpmorgan]

Not quite, no. Psystar had legally owned copies, purchased from Apple. Claims that their copies are illegal because they run afowl of the Apple-branded computer clause in the EULA are only relevant if the EULA applies, which is what the GP was calling into question. As such, your statement is purely circular: Psystar's use was illegal because it wasn't covered by the exception because it was illegal.

The actual reason is that the law has simply been ignored since its conception. A bad precedent was set, and judges have followed it ever since.

Re:Once again

[DM9290]

Owning the medium of the software clearly means nothing. You could always buy a recordable DVD and make a copy of the software and you would clearly own the medium, but that wouldn't give you any rights either. And you don't own the software: You have a license allowing certain uses, and since you asked, it is _copyright law_ that doesn't allow you to make any copies without permission (license) of the copyright holder.

Invalid analogy. You have no right to make a copy of the software onto the recordable DVD. This act is copyright infringement and that DVD is called an "Infringing copy".

Copyright law only allows you to install a non-infringing copy of software on a computer, including RAM.

Every time you use software which is an infringing copy, you are committing an additional act of copyright infringement.

On the other hand if Apple gives you a DVD with the sofware on it, then you have a non-infringing copy, and it is copyright law that allows you to make a copy of a non-infringing copy onto a computer including its RAM, for the strict purpose of running the software on that computer including the right even to modifying strictly for the purpose of making it compatible with that computer.

However you have no rights to distribute such computers. They contain copies of the software, and distribution rights are another exclusive right of the copyright holder.

You aren't even permitted to buy 100 copies of OSX and distribute them without Apple's permission.

If you comply the EULA may give you additional rights, but it didn't give you the original right to run the software, nor can an document you have not agreed to alter the fact that you legally own the copy of the software apple sold you.

I'm not saying EULA's are always invalid. And I'm not saying what Psystar is doing is legal. I'm saying its not as simple as people make it out to be.

Re:Once again

[jpmorgan]

Wait a minute, I thought the accepted truth at /. was that companies aren't entitled to their business models, and should adapt and innovate.

Or does that only apply to the record/film industry?

Re:Once again

[DM9290]

You should re-read it. Manually installing a copy of OS X on every computer is time consuming (particularly when it's a hackintosh and needs extra work), so Psystar did it once and then cloned the hard drive. That fucked them over big time.

I'm not sure if that really did in itself. If the effect is identical, then I suspect the court wouldn't care. However Psystar has no distribution right. To clone hard drives this way is clearly done for the purpose of distributing OSX and that would be an infringement even if the individual copies are all perfectly authorized under law.

The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.

Re:Once again

[cheesybagel]

You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market. Or IBM OS/360. Or Palm WebOS. Or...

Fujitsu. They even design their own SPARC CPUs which are better performing than Sun's. In fact, Sun has done such a craptastic job designing UltraSPARC V and Rock, that they have to sell high-end servers using Fujitsu's processors to be able to compete. Amdahl Corporation manufactures IBM S/360 hardware.

Re:Once again

[FlyMysticalDJ]

This argument is flawed. Shooting someone is an illegal action. Killing people was illegal before AK-47s existed. But running a piece of software is not an illegal action, so I don't see how you can limit how and when and where people are doing so if they have legally paid for it.

Re:Once again

[Xaositecte]

Eh, I always figured Copyright law was part of that 1/10th that "possession" doesn't fall under.

It's not good legal advice, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb for anything that doesn't involve copyright laws.

Re:Once again

[willy_me]

Fujitsu. They even design their own SPARC CPUs which are better performing than Sun's. In fact, Sun has done such a craptastic job designing UltraSPARC V and Rock, that they have to sell high-end servers using Fujitsu's processors to be able to compete. Amdahl Corporation manufactures IBM S/360 hardware.

You think they never requested permission to sell such systems? The point of the grandparent still stands - you try to sell such systems and see how long it takes to get a call from a lawyer.

Re:Once again

[CyberLife]

Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run.

Ever heard of Sony or Nintendo? Last I checked, PS3 and Wii discs were not readable on a PC -- technological measures and all that. In addition, their respective software licenses specifically forbid any copying whatsoever, a step required if one is going to use the titles on anything other than the intended hardware.

Re:Once again

[minsk]

No. Read the case.

From my understanding, Psystar installed one copy on Apple-branded hardware. They then modified that image, and replicated it repeatedly, eventually onto the systems which were sold (accompanied by unused Apple software).

Those additional copies are pretty clearly not authorized by either Apple nor Copyright law. Those additional copies are why the judge smacked down their first-sale claim. And those additional copies are why arguments about the EULA do not matter one whit.

Re:Once again

[gnasher719]

I should re-read the Psystar articles again, but I was pretty sure some of the penalties they are facing are because the Judge counted the contents of RAM as an extra copy.

You are actually completely wrong.

Yes, loading software into RAM means you are making a copy. That is bloody obvious. And when you have a license to use the software, then you automatically have the right to make the copy into RAM as well; when you don't have the license to use the software, you don't have the right to make that copy. But so far the judge has only decided that Psystar has indeed made copies without permission, made modifications without permission, and distributed the modified software without permission, exactly the three things that the copyright holder has the right to allow or not allow.

Damages are a second phase. Apple asks for two kind of damages: For copyright infringement, and for DMCA violation. For the copyright infringement, Apple apparently lets them get away very, very cheap: Apple only asks for $30,000 per work, once for MacOS X 10.5 and once for MacOS X 10.6. If you remember, Jammie whatshername was fined $80,000 per work, for 24 works, each work being not a complete operating system, but just a song that you could download for 99 cents or less. Apple didn't count how many copies were made when asking for damages for copyright infringement. If Apple gets what they want, then anyone in trouble with the RIAA should take very, very good notice of this.

However, Apple asks for $2500 per DMCA violation, and counts each computer shipped as one DMCA violation, and each upgrade disk that Psystar shipped as one DMCA violation. Apple thinks that starting each computer to check that it works would have been a DMCA violation, but doesn't ask for damages for that. And Apple says that every time a Psystar customer starts their computer, that is another DMCA violation, but not committed by Psystar. The DMCA violation is what will kill Psystar. That's also more important for Apple, because a company might be able to get around the copyright infringement, but they can't get around the DMCA violation.

Re:Once again

[Hamsterdan]

Sure. And MACs do not use cloned images?

unboxing a MAC only involves pluging it in, turning it on and typing some info on the registration *wizard*. So yes, Apple clones drives.

It shouldn't be different because it's the Mighty Steve (c)

Re:Once again

[burris]

You don't need a license to run an authorized copy of software any more than you need a license to read a book. Running software is not an exclusive right protected by copyright.

Re:Once again

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want to buy a copy of OSX and install it on my own hardware, it has nothing to do with copyright.

Of course it does.

This is why I can't legally buy one copy of Windows, and install it on 1000 machines I own, then resell them.
You conveniently leave out the last part of that sentence, which of course makes your statement true, even if 100% unrelated to the story.
If PyStar did not resell any of their machines, they too would not have broken the law. But they did, so you can not exclude that part.

You also say "If I want to buy a copy of OSX" as if that happened here.
Sure, one copy of OSX was bought. A lot more than one machine was sold. Ergo, copyright kicks in.

We all may hate it, but it is still the law currently.

Re:Once again

[Lars T.]

Bullshit. Apple sell software. If they were really wanted it installed on Crapple devices only, the first thing it would do is ask for your machine's serial number.

So Apple is evil for not asking for the serial number of your Mac.

Re:Once again

[Lars T.]

Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?

No, but that does indicate that there's something wrong.

All the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market often quote how it is a better thing for consumers than lots of regulation. It's true, when lots of competition exists. Ever questioned why that is? Hint: it's not because companies get a high profit margin. On the contrary, it's because prices approach marginal cost

A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market, but due to government protecting Apple's market in the form of enforcing EULAs in court. If you buy Mac OS X, they should have no say what you do with it.

I find it odd that to prove wrong "the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market" (and to whine about Apple's profits) you pull out an theoretical construct of theirs which is completely pie in the sky because it requires things like

• Infinite Buyers/Infinite Sellers
• Zero Entry/Exit Barriers
• Homogeneous Products

Not to forget that "Firms Aim to Maximize Profits" is also needed - which you came in to slam in the first place.

Re:Once again

[dgatwood]

You aren't even permitted to buy 100 copies of OSX and distribute them without Apple's permission.

Uh, no, the right of first sale says that you are, in fact, allowed to resell any legally purchased copy of software, period. Anyone who says otherwise probably works at Autodesk....

If you comply the EULA may give you additional rights, but it didn't give you the original right to run the software, nor can an document you have not agreed to alter the fact that you legally own the copy of the software apple sold you.

Actually, the EULA doesn't grant the original right to run a piece of software. Copyright law does.

Re:Once again

[KillShill]

Nope. Go back one more level. Corporations exist because the public gave them permission to "make a buck" (pursuit of happiness) in order that we gain from it also. Listening to any App£€ "user", one would think that corporate rights are the only things that matter. Fuck corporate rights, they need less, not more!

Re:Once again

[nhytefall]

Pet peeve here. The company's name is "Apple" in the vernacular, not apPle.

I understand that your mis-typing of the company's name is perhaps some attempt at slighting them, and thus demostrating your higher moral position. However, your misspelling is both juvenile, and gives me a headache.

So, in short, stop. Thanks.

Re:Once again

[MobyDisk]

Even so, the RAM argument is still irrelevant. Running a pirated program should not count as 2 counts of copyright infringement. And it should not count as an additional reason that the software was pirated. It is merely a consequence of the infringement.

Re:Once again

[drsmithy]

You should re-read it. Manually installing a copy of OS X on every computer is time consuming (particularly when it's a hackintosh and needs extra work), so Psystar did it once and then cloned the hard drive. That fucked them over big time.

If this is a problem with the law, then it is the law that is the problem.

Re:Once again

[falconwolf]

Wah wah wah Apple won't give me what I want.

Falcon

Re:Once again

[falconwolf]

The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.

On the First sale doctrine:
"With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner."

Falcon

Re:Once again

[falconwolf]

Psystar had legally owned copies, purchased from Apple.

Oh, really?

Falcon

Re:Once again

[falconwolf]

The software loaded onto the Psystar machines were legally paid for.

Oh, really?

This licensing agreement is trying to assert a right of a copyright holder to tell you what you can and cannot do with the works that do not include copying.

Copyright also makes it illegal to modify software without the copyright owners permission. Psystar installs a modified OS X on it's PCs.

Copyright licenses attempt to assert some pretty unfriendly terms of use and the terms keep getting worse and worse. It's about time these creeping terms are hedged off.

It's about tyme people try to profit off others' hard work and expenses.

Falcon

Re:Once again

[falconwolf]

which law is on the books that allows Apple to dictate how I may use their product in the privacy of my own home?

And when has Apple dictated and tried to prevent a person from making and using their own hackintosh? All Apple is doing is fighting another business who is trying to profit off of Apple's efforts. And making a profit isn't a right.

Falcon

Re:Once again

[falconwolf]

You aren't even permitted to buy 100 copies of OSX and distribute them without Apple's permission.

Yes you are, the First sale doctrine allows an owner of a legal copy to sell it, that includes retailers.

Falcon

Re:Once again

[cpicon92]

People can do what they want. Companies can't. Apple doesn't sue people for building hackintoshes the same way Microsoft doesn't sue the developers of wine. I'm sure Microsoft would sue Apple if they tried to make OSX run Windows apps.

Re:Once again

[falconwolf]

Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run

You don't know many PC OEMs then do you? I can't take the version of Windows that came with my Gateway and install it on my HP, nor can I install the Windows that came with my HP on a Gateway, or any PC other than that HP. Microsoft has PC OEMs create their own Windows install disk that only work on the PC it was made for.

So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.

Apple is a hardware and a software company, that's why. What is hard to understand about that?

Falcon

Re:Once again

[Glorat]

Thank you for the good reference. And as many have been missing, the whole point here is that Psystar did here alter the goods in a material manner (by bypassing software restrictions that detect hardware). Maybe if they had just sold a machine with a Hypervisor to run an unmodified OSX they would be on more solid ground

Re:Once again

[Glorat]

The software loaded onto the Psystar machines were legally paid for.

Not exactly - the software was a modified derivative of what Psystar paid for. A derivative that was not allowed by the original licensor (Apple). Therefore this copy is illegal.

It's like taking GPL software, modifying it, distributing it and then not following the original licence agreement (that you must then distribute source code). That's why this case is such a big deal for FOSS. If Psystar win, GPL begins to be in trouble

Re:Once again

[ground.zero.612]

Wah wah wah Apple won't give me what I want.

Falcon

I don't like OS X, and I don't like the neo-hippy styling of Apple products. I also don't like spending an extra $200-$1000 on a computer. So, in fact, I'm not the one crying. Apple can't give me what I want and never has been able to.

Sucks to be you, fanboi.

Re:Once again

[bingoUV]

But the point was: "let's see how long you do in the market".

It does not stand. You changed the point to "how long it takes to get a call from a lawyer". Memory distortion problems?

Re:Once again

[somersault]

In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari, Apple, Amiga or Commodore computer.

Actually, in the "old days" I used to run Shapeshifter (a Mac emulator) on my Amiga.

Re:Once again

[somersault]

Don't know if I should bite.. but since Apple owns the copyright on OSX (seeing as they created it), that obviously means they can copy it as much as they want.

It is in fact entirely different.

Re:Once again

[falconwolf]

A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market

There's plenty of competition. There are a few different versions of Windows, the dominate OS, and dozens of distros of Linux. And Linux is free.

When it comes to OS X, if you don't like the terms of use then don't use it. Nobody's holding a firearm to your head forcing you to use OS X. You can choose to use one of the versions of Windows, a distro of Linux, Solaris, or you can even write your own OS. If you have the skill. No government agent is going to force you to hand money over to Apple. Instead you want to force others to give you something you want. While Apple has no right to make a profit you have no right to take someone else's work.

Falcon

Re:Once again

[butlerm]

I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements

1. It is not settled law (to put it mildly) that the acceptance of a EULA is necessary to use a copy of software that you own. See here.

2. There is explicit federal law with regard to the right of a owner of a copy of a software program to modify that work as necessary to make it work on "a machine", provided that they do redistribute that modification. See 17 USC 1179(a).

Re:Once again

[WCguru42]

In response to your first point, that would fall into an argument over whether or not these types of licenses are legitimate. Until that argument is cleared up Apple's practice is suspect. When/if EULAs are deemed to be 100% valid in the case of restricted use of software I still don't believe that you'll be seeing Microsoft, Adobe, Skype or anyone else limiting their usage to specific computers, it just isn't in their business model. If adobe made their own hardware that they sold their software on they would probably chard a lot more for each license but they would lose much more in sales and would more than likely fail as a company.

Re:Once again

[butlerm]

I am convinced that retail EULAs are invalid on their face, and there are a number of courts that agree. The reason why they are invalid is a license is not required to use a copy that you own.

If there was a binding contract (as engaged in for some types of enterprise software), that would be a different story. By the point you have left the store with a copy of retail software however, you own that copy. No further license is required. The only way to make a retail EULA valid would be for the retail store to act as the software manufacturer's agent and require informed consent (preferably signed) with regard to the proposition that the customer isn't purchasing anything as part of the checkout process.

And the only reliable way for that to happen would be to agree that the physical media itself remains the property of the software manufacturer and is only leased to the customer for a finite period (ten years perhaps). No first sale rights because there wouldn't be a sale.

Re:Once again

[falconwolf]

Can you imagine a car company saying "you can buy our car, but only if you use Brand X gasoline.

I have a Mac and I can install Linux or Windows on it. A more appropriate car analogue would be to say Brand X Gas could only be used in Brand Y vehicle. That however is plainly stated on on the packaging. The label on the box of my Snow Leopard DVD states "Requirements, Mac computer with Intel processor". I was able to read that before I bought it, and if I did not want to live up to that I did not have to buy it.

I may build a hackintosh and give it to someone as a gift if only as a protest to Apple's hostility toward their customers.

Boo hoo, Apple won't give me what I want so I'll break the law.

Falcon

Re:Once again

[LordVader717]

There are specific exemptions for copying programs in order for them to be useful. You only need to own a copy.

The reasoning behind this case is that Apple can decide whether or not they're selling a copy, or "licensing" the software. By doing the latter, they in theory are able to circumvent laws designed specifically to prevent what they're doing.

The thing is, as far as I see it, there is nothing to suggest this is a natural choice for businesses to make. License agreements typically take special circumstances into account such as fixed-term usage or extra commission per work, not your typical buy-and-use software.

If such circumvention is indeed lawful, it would open up a box of other ludicrous tricks.
"I don't sell drugs. I licence them for personal use."

Re:Once again

[LordVader717]

That's not what the law says. All it says is that copying a program in a way that's necessary to use it isn't copyright infringement.

Thus if you pirate the copy and load it into the RAM, only the former counts as infringement wheras the latter doesn't.

Re:Once again

[PopeRatzo]

That however is plainly stated on on the packaging.

So?

"Requirements, Mac computer with Intel processor"

That's a technical requirement, not a legal one.

Shutter ?

[Fred_A]

n/t

Re:Shutter ?

[Necroman]

Shutter:

• a mechanical device on a camera that opens and closes to control the time of a photographic exposure
• close with shutters; "We shuttered the window to keep the house cool"
• a hinged blind for a window

duh.

I was thinking about buying a Mac...

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite their high cost relative to other vendors, I was thinking about buying a Mac. I used NeXTSTEP back in the day, and have heard good things about Mac OS X, so I thought it'd be worth it.

But I can't, in good conscious, know that I'd be financially supporting this sort of behavior if I were to buy Apple products.

So I'm buying from a local computer shop instead, and I'm going to run Linux.

Re:I was thinking about buying a Mac...

[gyrogeerloose]

Despite their high cost relative to other vendors, I was thinking about buying a Mac

Citation needed, otherwise I call bullshit. It's easy to make a statement like that but unless you can prove it, it's totally meaningless.

Re:I was thinking about buying a Mac...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it be more meaningful if the GP could prove it? Would it change your opinion of what he said in the slightest?

Re:I was thinking about buying a Mac...

[gyrogeerloose]

Yep, it would.

The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

Yeah, Apple is Apple and I don't have to like the way they do things. I will however support them if someone is encroaching on the way they want to run their business. Cracking an Apple OS to run on a machine that Apple doesn't want to goes against what Apple wants to do with their OS. Yes, I know, they're still making money on an OS copy sold, so they shouldn't bitch, but if they want to thats their business.

Apple wants everything to stay within their box, and they want to have complete and utter control over that box. As long as Apple isn't trying to control whats outside the box - I don't care, but as I see it, OS X is part of their box. In the long run, their strictly closed box might be their downfall. No skin off my back.

Re:The way I see it

[daveime]

The problem I see is not that Apple want complete control over *their* boxes, but that they want complete control over other manufacturer's boxes also.

Let's just say, hypothetically, that A N Other harware manufacturer could produce a system that ran Mac OSX perfectly well, or perhaps even better than Apple's own hardware, then a huge chunk of Apple's income would go south overnight.

So at what point does Apple's behaviour become anti-competitive ? They *are* shutting out other manufacturers from making hardware that *could* run their software.

Despite this being a perfectly valid argument, I expect to get modded into oblivion by the fanbois rather than expect any valid counterargument.

Re:The way I see it

[AnotherShep]

Here's what you're missing. Dell did that and does that with their Mini whatever netbooks, and nobody is stopping them. There are plenty of Hackintosh Mini 10s. Psystar, however, bought, modified, and unlawfully *redistributed* the modified software for use on their computers.

Re:The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

They aren't controlling other manufacturer's boxes though.

I don't know how manufacturer's got the idea of "Hey, I could run OS X on this box..." when Apple never gave them consent to. Its Apple's software, they decide who runs it.

The last thing Apple needs is bad PO saying that OS X got hit by a bad virus because of a vulnerability running on someone elses firmware. Sure, it won't hit any Legit Apple products, but the public will think that Macs are no longer secure.

Which is -EXACTLY- what is happening with the iPhone right now. The iPhone itself has never caught a virus, simply because they control the Apps on it. Now there are dozens of news stories about how iPhones are catching this and that, simply because people are Jailbreaking their iPhones. It's not good for the iPhone, which makes it not good for Apple.

When Apple tries to stop the same thing from happening to their Operating system, I can't blame them in the least.

Re:The way I see it

[nametaken]

Bullshit. What I do with my property after I've legally purchased it is MY FUCKING BUSINESS. Their opinions about what I should and shouldn't do with my property shouldn't be legal obligations. They manufactured it, I bought it, it's mine. If I want to put the engine from my Ford into a Dodge, that's my business, and Ford shouldn't be able to stop me because they feel it's inconsistent with their marketing strategies or because they'd rather I bought another complete car.

I'll cede that copying their OS and redistributing it would be a bogus thing to do, but that's it.

Re:The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

If you don't like the legal situation that comes with the product, then don't buy the product. You can't say "Not just redistribution" - either you follow ALL of the terms of the license, or none at all.

Re:The way I see it

[AnotherShep]

Yeah, see the part where the only people they were going after were the people modifying and reselling it without permission? Didn't think so.

Re:The way I see it

[pigphish]

To further your good argument, Apple sells Mac OS X by itself.

Re:The way I see it

[Stuart Gibson]

You don't sign a license agreement saying you won't put the engine in another car. Now, you can argue whether or not license agreements are fair or not and you can work your ass off to get the law changed so that you actually own the software you buy instead of just licensing it (good luck with that), but at the minute the law is on Apple's side.

Re:The way I see it

[DAldredge]

So was it wrong when Compaq cloned the IBM BIOS?

Re:The way I see it

[WCguru42]

To further your good argument, Apple sells Mac OS X by itself.

But Apple does not sell OS X for repackaging and resale. You can do what you want with a copy of OS X other than redistribute it.

Re:The way I see it

[mikael_j]

But it's being sold as for use with Apple computers that have other versions of Apple's operating system installed on them.

/Mikael

Re:The way I see it

[zoloto]

That's fine and dandy until you try to mass produce and sell systems with software installed that the license forbids it.

Re:The way I see it

[cheesybagel]

Apple has already shut down manufacturers which made better MacOS compatible hardware than they did. Power Computing and UMAX used to make better MacOS hardware than Apple did. Power Computing, for example, had faster hardware than Apple itself. One of the first things Steve Jobs did when he returned as CEO was to shut down the clone market by pulling the plug on licensing. I guess one of the things he learned from running NeXT was that there was little money to be made in a niche software OS business. NeXT's move to a pure software based business model around OpenStep was its own undoing.

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. What I do with my property after I've legally purchased it is MY FUCKING BUSINESS.

I see. So because you bought a gun legally any crimes you commit with it are your fucking business and the courts should stay out of it?

Their opinions about what I should and shouldn't do with my property shouldn't be legal obligations. They manufactured it, I bought it, it's mine.

Sure it is, but it's still copyrighted. You can't make a million copies of a copyrighted book and sell them without a license that allows you to do so. You can't copy OS X onto hundreds of computers and sell them without a license that allows you to do so.

If I want to put the engine from my Ford into a Dodge, that's my business, and Ford shouldn't be able to stop ...

Your analogy is broken. It's more like copying the engine in your ford, installing it into Dodges, and selling them for profit. Just because you bought the first one does not men you can ignore the patents involved and a license to use the patents in a specific case, does not grant you the legal right to do anything else.

Re:The way I see it

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Your car analogy is incomplete, and incorrect.
Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine, and put it into a Dodge Neon. Now this is entirely legal, and none of their business. The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk, and start a company to sell my new "Ferrari compatible" cars.

Still not perfect, but a lot closer than the original.

Re:The way I see it

[uglyduckling]

The whole point of this story is that Psystar were modifying OS X without authorisation, storing the unauthorised modified copy on a server, and cloning those modified copies onto third party machines. How many companies do that (or get away with doing that) with Windows*? NONE. Office? NONE. In fact, if you took Ubuntu and modified it, then tried to resell or distribute it as "Ubuntu" and not under some other name, you would be at the wrong end of a lawsuit.

I realise here that Apple really doesn't want OS X to be a commodity OS, they want it tied to the hardware. But the case against Psystar is based on perfectly legitimate concerns, even if many Slashdotters don't like the end results. Apple are not the bad guys here, they're simply using a legitimate legal issue to achieve the end result they desire.

* before anyone starts talking about Dell etc. making installation images - they are authorised to do this by Microsoft under a licensing agreement, they aren't going out and buying retail copies of the OS.

Re:The way I see it

[MightyMartian]

My attitude is "It's Apple's OS, they can do what they like with it." Quite frankly, I think the advantages of OSX are completely overblown, and since the adoption of x86 hardware, the not-so-secret selling feature has been "runs Windows too!!!!"

But hey, they own it, and Psystar has behaved like a pack of crooks.

Re:The way I see it

[Acapulco]

To use a car analogy for once...

So you would be okay if the manufacturer of your car *forced* you to buy certain high-priced tires because the cheap-o ones will easily get torn at high-speeds, so you would crash AND as a result give Ford bad publicity?

By your reasoning this would be okay...no?

Re:The way I see it

[gnasher719]

So at what point does Apple's behaviour become anti-competitive ? They *are* shutting out other manufacturers from making hardware that *could* run their software.

Apple doesn't stop any manufacturer up to one point: Macs contain a chip with a (not very secret) key that is needed to decrypt the MacOS X software. Dell could make a 100 percent Mac compatible computer up to the point that this key mustn't be there, because adding that key constitutes a DMCA violation.

You could have read the text of Judge Alsup's judgement. He had to look at exactly the question that you raised. And what he saw is that Apple tells you and anyone else what you can do with MacOS X. And that is exactly what copyright law is intended for. Apple does _not_ tell you what to do with anybody else's software. Apple doesn't tell you what to do with your computer as long as it doesn't involve Apple's software.

Re:The way I see it

[Stormwatch]

That's technically different; Compaq used the clean room to create a new BIOS that was compatible with IBM's. It's just like Microsoft can't do a thing about ReactOS, a free system designed to run all Windows apps.

Re:The way I see it

[Steeltoe]

The problem with your argument is that if IBM had shut down all the clones in the 80/90s, the commodity market for computers might never have taken place. We would be stuck with each our proprietary systems, witht their own proprietary cables and devices.

If I want to buy a device or piece of software, or even computer to put together with my other legally purched devices, I should be able to do that without being stopped by over-zealous and anti-customer corporations.

This case should be dismissed out of hand based on the clone-cases by IBM. EULAs should be forbidden by law, as they have never been agreed upon prior to purchase, and are non-negotiable.

Re:The way I see it

[AnotherShep]

No, because they cloned it, not copied it...

Re:The way I see it

[_merlin]

None of them made better hardware than Apple. They often made faster hardware, but it was generally less reliable, ran hotter, was more difficult to work on, etc. The clones gave Macintoshes a bad name.

Re:The way I see it

[jo_ham]

It's not your property, it's Apple's. They sold you a licence to use it.

Re:The way I see it

[nomadic]

I don't know how manufacturer's got the idea of "Hey, I could run OS X on this box..." when Apple never gave them consent to. Its Apple's software, they decide who runs it.

Well if Apple wants complete control over what people do with their software, they shouldn't sell it.

Re:The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

Considering that it is not in the license agreement of when I purchased this car, I wouldn't be enforced to it.

If however, I was looking at purchasing a car, and the license agreement said that I had to buy high priced tires, you can bet I wouldn't want to buy that car. If I did for whatever reason buy that car, I would be obligated to hold up my end of the license agreement.

Re:The way I see it

[nomadic]

They often made faster hardware, but it was generally less reliable, ran hotter, was more difficult to work on, etc. The clones gave Macintoshes a bad name.

And since Steve Jobs told you that, it MUST be true.

Re:The way I see it

[DarthVain]

Another example of this is the new Palm smart phone trying to pretend it is an iPhone so it can connect to iTunes (or some such thing).

Apple banned their access, and Palm eventually gave up trying to connect.

Apple likes to have total control over everything, this is how they get things to "just work". They can take 9 of 10 variables out of the equation, because they don't allow them.

Corporate IT does the same thing using templates and approved software, etc... so when something goes wrong, there is only a limited number of things that it could be, and thus it is easier to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. However at the same time it is annoying as you are very limited.

Apple accepts this limitation as its core functionality in most of its business.

It has gotten a bit more flexible, and uses more standard PC hardware (which is why we are having this discussion now, and it makes it possible for people to hack it easily onto a "clone"). In the past they were made mostly with fairy dust, and unicorn dreams, but as a result, were even more horribly incompatible with anything, and if you thought Apple was expensive now, when everything was custom made, it was more expensive and less profitable, and less current (because they had a separate development path and less money). I believe the chips were Motorola, and not sure of the rest. So they have made some concessions to opening up their brand in the name of profits, but of course now this whole Pystar thing is a direct result of this. However as seen this is now the role of the courts...

Re:The way I see it

[tomhudson]

If however, I was looking at purchasing a car, and the license agreement said that I had to buy high priced tires, you can bet I wouldn't want to buy that car. If I did for whatever reason buy that car, I would be obligated to hold up my end of the license agreement.

No, you wouldn't. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act forbids after-sale tie-ins, just like you don't void your warranty agreement by getting your oil changed elsewhere, or doing it yourself.

Re:The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

That's terrible logic, and even you must agree.

By that logic, if musicians don't want their music copied, they shouldn't sell digital copies. Or to be even more secure, they shouldn't play their music anywhere to reduce the risk of anyone making a digital copy.

Apple got big by being "Better" than Microsoft. Better in ways of security, compatibility, attractiveness, and ease of use. Now ease of use is pretty easy to control because thats something they have 100% control over in their program code. However, if their software is allowed to run on computers not built by them, those other reasons are no longer present. They are no longer as secure, they are no longer as compatible, and they are no longer in that shiny attractive Apple box.

This can hurt Apple, so they want to specifically protect those reasons that make them "Better" than Microsoft. And locking down their software is the way they do it.

Re:The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

Well then there are laws in place to prevent that from happening.

However, there are no laws in place to prevent Apple from doing so. If people REALLY want it to be illegal, they should protest it.

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it dick.

Re:The way I see it

[toddestan]

In fact, if you took Ubuntu and modified it, then tried to resell or distribute it as "Ubuntu" and not under some other name, you would be at the wrong end of a lawsuit.

You mean like this?
http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=All&origin=All&basedon=Ubuntu&desktop=All&architecture=All&status=Active

The only real way you could get into trouble would be to call your modified software "Ubuntu" or include some of the logos and artwork, since that is trademarked. Otherwise, you could get into trouble if you didn't distribute the source code for your changes, due to the GPL. Otherwise, you can pretty much modify Ubuntu however you want and redistribute the changes.

Re:The way I see it

[toddestan]

Whoops, sorry - I misread your post.

Still, I have to wonder about some like Mythbuntu or "Ubuntu Christian Edition".

Re:The way I see it

[jpmorgan]

As long as you stayed clear of trademark problems, you wouldn't see any lawyers. At worst, Ferrari might stop selling engines to you.

There is a large industry full of companies that do basically what you're suggesting (although perhaps not creating quite such a ridiculous product).

Re:The way I see it

[tomhudson]

Apple isn't doing an after-sale tie-in. You don't *have* to ever upgrade your computer.

What they're doing is saying that when you buy a software upgrade, here are the terms and conditions. If they offer the upgrade and they also offer a different SKU as a bare install disk, then they shouldn't be allowed to say what hardware you can run it on, but that's a different story. In psystars' case, they were acting as retailers, not end-users. I don't think apple cares if the end user makes themselves a hackintosh, but they don't want competition in the hardware segment.

Is what they're doing anti-competitive? Yes. That's why they're using trademark and copyright law, not saying "this is illegal because we control the hardware." Or they're exporting the Steve Jobs RDF. At this point, who gives a crap?

After all, if you don't want Windows, you can get linux, you can get bsd, you can get menuet, and a bunch of other freely available operating systems. You want OSX? Then help someone make a works-alike port of Cocoa and Carbon and Aqua and IOKit - or go play around with this, or any one of a number of things.

Re:The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

I don't think apple cares if the end user makes themselves a hackintosh

Oh Really?

Re:The way I see it

[Acapulco]

My argument wasn't about the license agreement, but about your point on how Apple would "look bad" when viruses strike the iPhone.

I wanted to point out that your car manufacturer should not care about the usage of the product after purchase, even if it is not used as intended originally. Like using a car to build a sculpture that the manufacturer wouldn't aprove of or something along those lines.

Much like Apple should not care if I use my brand-new MacBook Pro as toilet paper, even if it gives them bad publicity because people are using their product to wipe their asses.

Re:The way I see it

[_merlin]

Prove that they weren't less reliable. You sound like someone who never had the dubious pleasure of dealing with these machines. It's personal experience, but every Power Computing and UMAX machine I ever had to deal with needed a new PSU within a year. The cheap RAM they used often failed within a few months. They were a pain to take apart, too - sharp edges everywhere. You get what you pay for.

Re:The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

You think companies shouldn't care how your product is used?

Suppose you made a car, and a few weeks after selling it, you found out that Terrorists were the most popular buyers, because of some design flaw made it excellent for car bombing.

Next thing you know, theres a news report on how well the Acapulco 2000 series vehicle is used to kill civilians and anyone seen driving one should be considered dangerous.

A company -HAS- to look out for its image. To not do so would be folley.

Re:The way I see it

[derrickh]

"Your car analogy is incomplete, and incorrect.
Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine, and put it into a Dodge Neon. Now this is entirely legal, and none of their business. The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk, and start a company to sell my new "Ferrari compatible" cars."

That happens all the time. In fact, many 'supercars' will use BMW or Mercedes engines. The Corvette's engine is in a number of 'third party' cars. Chip Foose's production car uses a Hemi engine from Chrysler.

And as far as I know, no one has been sued.

D

Re:The way I see it

[nomadic]

By that logic, if musicians don't want their music copied, they shouldn't sell digital copies.

You're missing the point, I'm not talking about copying and distributing, I'm talking about doing what you want with something for your personal use. If I buy Bob the pop singers' latest CD, then make 1,000 copies that I keep in my apartment, then it's still none of his business until I start distributing them. To get a better analogy, if I buy 1,000 copies of the album and distribute them with CD players I sell, still none of Bob's business.

This can hurt Apple, so they want to specifically protect those reasons that make them "Better" than Microsoft. And locking down their software is the way they do it.

No, being overly litigious is the way they do it. Apple has complete control over the software they bundle with their hardware. Psystar doesn't change that.

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you get a warranty with your computer? Sounds an awful lot like FUD to me.

Re:The way I see it

[_merlin]

A warranty doesn't save you from the inconvenience of having a dead machine while you wait for the replacement parts to be sent out. I'd take a machine that works, so I don't have to fall back on the warranty, over one that fails regularly and needs to be fixed all the time. Off-topic, hard disk warranties are pretty much useless. A friend of mine got a Seagate hard disk with a five year warranty. It failed (taking some data with it), so they sent out a new disk. This one also failed, and needed to be replaced. After about five iterations he gave up. He never knew when the hard disk would fail, but he knew it would. The five year warranty didn't save him from having a b0rked machine while he waited for a replacement to arrive.

Re:The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

Ah, but what if you starting using Bob the pop Singer's latest CD in your upcoming Summer hit movie without Bob the poop singer's permission? It depends on how Bob the pop singer feels about how you are using his music in that film.

Just because you purchase something doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want with it. There are laws that are generated by the Federal Government (like Copyright laws) and then there are Licensing Laws the the company creates itself and is enforced by the government. If you think that the government shouldn't be used to enforce the EULA, go do something about it.

Apple Tries locking down the software. When people break that, they go the legal route.

Is that all you're really upset about? Apple using the courts to defend its software? Or is it that Apple is trying to defend its software? Because I've already laid out why they should.

Re:The way I see it

[rlanctot]

You're kidding, right? I was an Apple tech during and after the Power Computing era. The Power Computing machines were an absolute nightmare to fix. sharp edges, shitty hardware, etc etc.

Re:The way I see it

[not-my-real-name]

If Psystar had started with GnuStep (or OpenStep, or whatever it's called) and built a Mac OS X compatible OS, they would have probably been fine.

Re:The way I see it

[Macgrrl]

It wouldn't have taken much to make better hardware than what Apple was churning out in those days. The performa range was known among Apple ttechs as being problem machines with numerous extended warranty service issues raised against them - don't even get me started on the PB190/5300 family.

Today's hardware is a totally different story.

Re:The way I see it

[KillShill]

Yeah, Business Models (tm) are king. No one, least of all us peons would/should dare to think we have any rights not granted to us by our multi-billion dollar overlords. Please bend over and receive your new RFID tracking/DNA monitoring chip while you wait to get a half-eaten fruit tatooed on your forehead. Move along citizen err "consumer asshole" (George Carlin)... The day i support corporate rights over public ones is the day i no longer consider myself a moral person.

Re:The way I see it

[snStarter]

Apple watched the cloners eat up the high-profit-margin portion of the market leaving it with the low-end dregs. They couldn't survive doing that. So Jobs did the right thing: he took that market segment back. Apple does make, relatively, low-end machines but even they make a decent return. He doesn't need to fight it out with Dell and HP. This is called being smart. They also support their machines quite fairly: that has been my experience. Don't like it? Go find a different model.

Personally I'm wondering where the money to form Pysystar came from and more to the point where it went.

Re:The way I see it

[KillShill]

So, which is it?

Is the DMCA a good thing or bad thing?...

Re:The way I see it

[Burpmaster]

If however, I was looking at purchasing a car, and the license agreement said that I had to buy high priced tires, you can bet I wouldn't want to buy that car. If I did for whatever reason buy that car, I would be obligated to hold up my end of the license agreement.

Then you wouldn't buy any car. If that kind of arrangement were legal every car manufacturer would demand it.

Re:The way I see it

[moosesocks]

One of the first things Steve Jobs did when he returned as CEO was to shut down the clone market by pulling the plug on licensing.

And let me tell you. It's been an absolute disaster for the company.

Re:The way I see it

[moosesocks]

The DOT would probably have a thing or two to say, given that the engine would probably tear itself loose the moment you stepped on the gas.

(Actually, selling cars in the US is apparently a regulatory nightmare, given the extensive emissions and safety testing each vehicle must go through)

Re:The way I see it

[falconwolf]

at what point does Apple's behaviour become anti-competitive ?

Apple's behavior becomes anti-competitive when Apple prevents competition from creating their own hardware AND software. I haven't hear Apple doing or trying to do that. Unlike another business Apple even worked on and helped with a version of Linux on Mac hardware, MkLinux. In preparing to install Ubuntu on the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on some Apple techs gave me suggestions on how.

Falcon

Re:The way I see it

[StuartHankins]

Exactly. And if Apple lets Psystar get away with it, then Apple gives up many of its rights to enforce the license later.

Ignoring it could mean a devaluation of the product's perception (cheapening), public confusion on what a "Mac" is (when the market is flooded with almost-compatibles such as the Hackintoshes), and loss of control of the product they've invested a lot of money in developing.

And yes if Microsoft were in this situation I would defend them as well -- I develop software for a living and I totally "get" what birthing a product of this complexity involves and how important it is to Apple's image to keep it untarnished.

Re:The way I see it

[Ash-Fox]

Note: I am not the GP poster.

It's personal experience, but every Power Computing and UMAX machine I ever had to deal with needed a new PSU within a year.

That's sounds far better than the majority of genuine Macs I've owned. I don't think I've had a single one that didn't have a "logic board failure", even right up to when I owned a Macbook Pro (which had so many other issues, including high pitch whistling, floppy wireless, graphics chip failing etc).

I'm not protecting the clones as such, but I am pointing out that Apple's hardware is not exactly the most reliable, especially in my experience. Unfortunately, the quality of their hardware hasn't changed that significantly either, in my opinion.

Of course, this data is somewhat anecdotal, but it's quite hard to make statistics when Apple silently delete these problems from discussions.apple.com, refuse to acknowledge problems until there is an overwhelming amount of people complaining and have a rather ravage fan base who will defend anything about Apple.

Re:The way I see it

[StuartHankins]

It was fairly widely known that these cheaper machines skimped on parts, support etc but the market for these machines (while they existed) was the cutthroat commodity market, much like today's PC industry. Caveat emptor and all that.

And yes, they caused some degree of confusion with consumers and hurt Apple's image, even though they weren't Apple products.

Re:The way I see it

[falconwolf]

Actually, selling cars in the US is apparently a regulatory nightmare, given the extensive emissions and safety testing each vehicle must go through

There isn't a problem selling your own cars in the US, I've sold a number of them legally and haven't had a single problem doing so. What problem I had, which wasn't a problem at all, was finding a buyer.

Falcon

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove that they weren't less reliable.

The onus is on you, pussy.

My my, momma must be proud of her 'tarded son with his convoluted logic.

Re:The way I see it

[atheistmonk]

That worked -for- us here with Toyota Lancers. Hoons loved them and the price dropped because of all the crashes and whatnot. Very good car, which became a lot cheaper.

Re:The way I see it

[cerberusss]

Today's hardware is a totally different story.

Totally different from the old days, yes. But today's Apple (laptop) hardware is really nothing remarkable. It ranks 4th in reliability, just above Dell, but below Sony, Asus and Toshiba:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/laptop-reliability-survey-asus-and-toshiba-win-hp-fails/

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple wants everything to stay within their box, and they want to have complete and utter control over that box. As long as Apple isn't trying to control whats outside the box - I don't care, but as I see it, OS X is part of their box.

I have no problem with Apple controlling a box of theirs - but once I buy a Mac, it's my box, and I'll do what I damn well like with it.

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Its Apple's software, they decide who runs it.

Bullshit. Once I buy a copy, I decide what I want to run it on, or who I want to sell it on to.

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why people hate you Mac fanboys. When it really really matters, you still bend over backwards to apologize for Apple instead of doing the right thing. This is the type of shit that really matters: people having the freedom to reverse engineer and to do whatever they want with software and hardware they lawfully purchased.

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

In the eyes of Apple fan boys, anything Apple can use to help its business must be good.

Re:The way I see it

[bingoUV]

So you bought the car, and it is delivered to your doorstep. As soon as you open its door, a large balloon pops up preventing your entry. The following message is written on the balloon:
Only certified Ford tiers are allowed to be used on this car.

The balloon has 2 rectangles on it: one saying "I agree", the other saying "I disagree". Using your car key, if you burst the balloon at the "I agree" rectangle: you can continue to drive the car. But if you burst it at the "I disagree" rectangle, the car stops working.

What would you do?

This is how EULA works.

Re:The way I see it

[Monkeedude1212]

Either follow the EULA or return the product. Its simple.

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple are not the bad guys here, they're simply using a legitimate legal issue to achieve the end result they desire.

Sounds a lot like what the RIAA and MPAA are doing...

Re:The way I see it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I don't know about Power Computing or UMAX, but I had a Motorola Starmax clone that was the bee's knees baby. Very nice computer and extremely reliable. Awesome warranty as well, though I never needed it...

Re:The way I see it

[Swift2001]

Not a good analogy. The Ford isn't bonded to its tires with a copyright. You can buy any tires you want.

A better example with Ford might be the Sync system, licensed from Microsoft to be used in new Fords. Say I like that, and develop an after-market business that transfers Sync technology over to Chevies, Toyotas etc. Microsoft and Ford have an exclusivity clause in their contract, I'm sure, and my after-market business would be toast.

Re:The way I see it

[Swift2001]

That's right. The ONLY way Microsoft makes money on software is by dominating the market. Why? Well, until very recently, they had NO significant hardware division. Now, with the XBox, the Zune -- tee-hee -- they have some, but do we know for sure if they make money?

I think that's the flaw behind the Microsoft business plan: they need to have 90% of the computers on their OS, with Exchange, and Office, etc., to make money. That's why Vista was such a disaster. Years later, and the majority were still on XP. And they had to keep people making software patches for XP, for free.

Instead of market dominance, Apple's never looking for much more than 20% of the market in computers. (They're adept at making computer add-ons like iPhones and iPods, which have a larger slice of that particular market -- because there's a Windows version, and the smart Linux people have whipped up iTunesy-like software too.) The hardware-software binding probably ensures that they won't ever get more than a nice solid fraction of computer sales. Some will need software that isn't available on the Mac, though that list is getting shorter. Some will prefer cheaper, and some will prefer faster hardware. And they don't mind Windows. God knows, some actually like Windows. The answer is simple: don't buy one. The majority of systems don't run the Mac OS. No problem. (By the way, you can still make a hackintosh. It's pretty easy, right? A company can't bring it out, though. The Mac doesn't use activation, go right ahead. VMWare now runs the Mac OS, too. So you could have a bootcamp partition running Windows with a VMWare OS X guest system. On a Mac.

An awful lot of people are complaining that the Mac is just as much a meanie as Microsoft, because of this insistence on software being tied to machines. Nobody who has followed Apple during Jobs I or Jobs II thinks that's true. Don't like, buy the cheaper computers. I mean, monopoly rules are for firms that dominate entire markets, and then take fair competition away. Unfair competition might be say, if they stopped making iTunes for Windows -- though I'm sure many here would applaud -- thus unfairly pressuring people to leave Windows. Or it might mean giving away the OS to companies like Psystar, while refusing it to others.

Monopoly law has nothing against a certain software or hardware becoming very popular, it has to do with the tactics employed once you get to a monopoly position.

The most recent word is, Apple is making about half the profits for the entire retail computer industry. They're not about market dominance, they're about margins, margins, margins. As long as there are lots of places you can get cheaper machines with comparable abilities, there's no restraint of trade or unfair competition.

Re:The way I see it

[LordVader717]

Apple's behavior becomes anti-competitive when Apple prevents competition from creating their own hardware AND software.

Apple prevents competition in hardware by leveraging their significant market power they have with their OS.
Although the two products are closely related, it does not warrent a unilateraly tying.

Unlike another business Apple even worked on and helped with a version of Linux on Mac hardware

The point is that they are shieding their hardware sales with their OS, not the other way round.

Re:The way I see it

[Swift2001]

Gee, what's the odds of this? TWO people coming to one forum and having completely atypical experiences... oh, wait a minute, it's a Mac-PC war.

Jobs cancelled the clones because they WEREN'T making money for Apple, and that was in the days when making money was life-and-death.

Re:The way I see it

[falconwolf]

The point is that they are shieding their hardware sales with their OS, not the other way round.

What? Fact is is Apple is a hardware and a software business. Apple designs their hardware and software to work well together.

Falcon

Re:The way I see it

[Ash-Fox]

Gee, what's the odds of this? TWO people coming to one forum and having completely atypical experiences

Using wp.pl's data: 193/501

Jobs cancelled the clones because they WEREN'T making money for Apple

This has nothing to do with my previous comment. You might want to tell that to the other commenters before me.

Re:The way I see it

[bingoUV]

Interesting. So bursting a balloon (also clicking a mouse) now constitutes an agreement. Let us follow the thought train for a while, please point out where I go wrong:

1. A non-lawyer user maybe unaware of this.
2. Being a civil matter, ignorance of the law should be considered a valid excuse for not following it.
3. Where do we stop? What if television advertisements start having a EULA displayed at the end: "by watching this advertisement, you agree to buy the product this week" ? Will you agree to it?

3a. If yes, wouldn't life become inconvenient?
3b. If not, what is the logical (not legal) excuse for not following in advertisement what must be followed in product usage?

You mean

[ArchieBunker]

I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?

Re:You mean

[ArsonSmith]

Of course you can do what ever you want with software you legally own. But any software you license from someone else is software you have to play by the owner's rules with.

Re:You mean

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't do whatever* I want with a piece of software I legally own?

* as long as "whatever" doesn't violate any state/local/federal laws.

Re:You mean

[WCguru42]

I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?

Too bad you don't legally own the software, only a licensee to it. I don't like it any more than the next guy (unless the next guy is a software company, then they probably like it a lot) but that appears to be the way the law looks at software. I guess that's what happens when you get legislation from people who don't understand what they are legislating.

Re:You mean

[Traa]

You can do whatever you want with software you legally own.

Problem is, there isn't much (or any?) software you legally own. You don't own the Windows install on your comp, or the OS X or even Linux versions. You have "licenses" to use those (even Linux) for particular means. And those licenses refer to legislation and other stuff (DMCA, patents, copyright law, ...) restricting your use even further.

Of course it didn't start or stop with SW. Big chunks of the music and movie industry have fought for years to prevent the "free" use of material through *cough* creative licenses.

Re:You mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you don't legally own the software, only a licensee to it.

Autodesk vs Verner disagrees with that obviously ridiculous interpretation of that particular law.

Re:You mean

[Sj0]

The license for Linux is a distribution license, not a use license.

There are a lot of people with weird ideas about the law here...

Re:You mean

[hrimhari]

The license for Linux is a distribution license, not a use license.

I believe that the original point was to illustrate how nobody really own a linux copy, except maybe Mr. Tovalds. You're still bound to whatever license applies to it.

Re:You mean

[zblack_eagle]

That case was about whether you could transfer/resell your license under the first-sale doctrine, not whether you owned the software itself

Re:You mean

[falconwolf]

I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?

As if that's only true with Apple. NOT!!!

Falcon

Re:You mean

[LordVader717]

Bullshit. If I have a copy of Linux on a CD, I own that copy. If I have the software on the hard drive, that is also my copy.
The only thin I don't own is the copyright.
If I make copies of the program and distribute it, that infringes upon the authors copyright. The GNU General Public Licence, which accompanies every copy of the software, grants me the right to copy and distribute the software to anyone. This is something that I would not be able to with a normal copy of software.

Psystar f-ed it up

[russotto]

This isn't a case where Psystar was making boxes, buying retail copies of MacOS, installing those on the boxes and selling box and MacOS together. That's how Psystar portrayed it, but it turns out that what they were actually doing was cloning all the machines from a master copy of the OS, then including a (still-unopened) copy of MacOS with the box. If you want to use 17 USC 117 (running programs) and 17 USC 109 (First Sale), you have to actually observe the forms. It's not enough to claim that the result is the same as if you'd observed the forms. Thus the case was a slam-dunk for Apple.

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still inane. I argue this is similar to time-shifting. If they paid for the copies, who cares where they install them? Face it, people who are in favor of Apple in this case wouldn't be in favor if it was some other company, say CueCat or this was DVD CSS Region Control.

If I was a judge I would understand this as breach of copyright license if the license includes a mention in how you can only use the software in Apple hardware. That is if I was a judge, who was concerned with upholding the law rather than doing The Right Thing (TM).

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[uglyduckling]

The license does say you can only use the software with Apple hardware.

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[gnasher719]

It's still inane. I argue this is similar to time-shifting. If they paid for the copies, who cares where they install them?

You can argue as much as you like, but Judge Alsup didn't agree with you. Mostly because that is not what happened.

Psystar paid for boxes with MacOS X and a license that allows installation on one Apple-labeled computer. They shipped their computers with these _unopened_ boxes. Whoever bought one of their computers now has a box with MacOS X which they can install completely legally on any Apple computer. Clearly these boxes have _nothing_ at all to do with the software that Psystar installed on their computers. Actually, the court saw evidence that the software in the boxes and the software installed was not the same. Psystar didn't even bother to argue in court that they bought boxes with MacOS X. Had they bought boxes with Windows 7, or boxes full of popcorn, it would have exactly the same legal effect - none whatsoever.

Let me say that again: Psystar bought boxes with MacOS X and sold them on. If you buy MacOS X and sell it on, then there are no rights that stick with you.

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[Steeltoe]

The license is not legal. I never agreed to it prior to purchase. I was never given opportunity to negotiate the terms. I don't even know what terms they have dictated in their silly documents. The terms are draconian and unenforcable.

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[gyrogeerloose]

The license is not legal. I never agreed to it prior to purchase. I was never given opportunity to negotiate the terms. I don't even know what terms they have dictated in their silly documents. The terms are draconian and unenforcable.

You did agree once you once the box, however. Apple's license is printed, admittedly in tiny little print, on the outside of the retail package and it clearly states that if you don't agree with the terms of the license, you should return the software unopened. As soon as you break the seal, that's legally the same as agreeing to the terms of the license.

You may consider the terms draconian but they are indeed enforceable, as the lawsuit in question here proves.

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple-labeled hardware, actually.

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[StuartHankins]

No one's forcing you to use Apple stuff. After all they do not have the lion's share of the market.

If on the other hand you need their products, you have to abide by the terms of their license. Like it or not license terms come with every piece of software you install, even open-source software, with the obvious exceptions of software you create yourself or software someone else creates and gifts to you.

Who knows, by skipping the Apple software you may come up with something far better. It may be your destiny.

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[falconwolf]

If I was a judge I would understand this as breach of copyright license if the license includes a mention in how you can only use the software in Apple hardware.

The label on my unopened Snow Leopard DVD box lists as a requirement "Mac computer with Intel processor". However according to at least one ruling by a federal judge software is sold not licensed. Normally that should work against Apple, however Pystar modifies OSX and mass copies it, both against copyright law. On top of that Pystar hasn't even proved they paid for OS X since they started selling their PCs with it.

Falcon

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[Rogerborg]

I have to ask: do you honestly believe that if you keep repeating that EULAs are "unenforcable" often enough that the courts will actually start to agree with you?

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[LordVader717]

Good points, but by your reasoning Psystar should be able to continue business by installing the copies individually from CDs and then introduce their modifications. Or by selling Products that do so.
That doesn't seem to be tha case here.

Re:Psystar f-ed it up

[uglyduckling]

Yes, but if you look at the details of this lawsuit, it's not against YOU (so breathe a sigh of relief). This is about a company repeatedly breaking the terms of that license, the details of which they were fully aware. You may be right that those terms are unenforceable against private individuals who bought the software as a retail sale. However, this case is about a company installing the software from an unauthorised (i.e. outwith their license) source onto computers which they then sold, alongside reselling a retail copy.

Why do companies keep doing this?

[CohibaVancouver]

I'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys, though, when they know they'll get crushed, like a nut.

You've got Real thinking they can legally distribute software to rip DVDs to you hard drive, Psystar thinking they can legally create defacto Macs, Napster thinking they can facilitate file sharing and on and on.... Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works.

Re:Why do companies keep doing this?

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Perhaps I am paranoid, but think of all the good that Apple has gotten out of Pystar:
Massive free advertising.
Defacto confirmation of their OS license.
Now no one else will try what Pystar did.

If I were a betting man I would bet on Steve Jobs owning a large piece of Pystar.

Re:Why do companies keep doing this?

[Yvan256]

Steve Jobs can't possibly own a large piece of Psystar, the poor guy only receives $1/year in salary!

Re:Why do companies keep doing this?

[gyrogeerloose]

I'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys, though, when they know they'll get crushed, like a nut.

Check out the Groklaw article on the case. It appears that getting sued by Apple was part of Psystar's business plan from the get-go. They actually marketed the idea to VC outfits as a reason to invest in the company.

What Psystar was more than anything else--certainly more than a computer manufacturer--was a case of investor fraud. Standby for shareholder lawsuits in 3...2...1...

Re:Why do companies keep doing this?

[gyrogeerloose]

Steve Jobs can't possibly own a large piece of Psystar, the poor guy only receives $1/year in salary!

Yeah, poor guy. Stuck with nothing but Apple stock options, bummer...

Re:Why do companies keep doing this?

[mjwx]

Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works.

Someone needs to sit down and explain how this business of being crushed works.

You're thinking logically about how to make money, that's your first mistake, stop. People who start these businesses and the people who bankroll these business know that they will be crushed but before then there is a small amount of time to undercut the big boys and make a lot of money in the process. So its not about trying to create a sustainable business as much as it is about making a quick buck and getting that buck out of the country before the big boys can react.

From a VC point of view its also about creating a loss on the books as a tax offset (whilst keeping the profits in a secret Cayman Island account).

Re:Why do companies keep doing this?

[Lars T.]

If I were a betting man I would bet on Steve Jobs owning a large piece of Pystar.

So Steve is the John Doe Apple sued along with Psystar? Is he also Worker Bee?

Re:Why do companies keep doing this?

[falconwolf]

Steve Jobs can't possibly own a large piece of Psystar, the poor guy only receives $1/year in salary!

And is on Walt Disney's board of directors. With Disney's acquisition of Pixar Jobs became Disney's largest stockholder.

Falcon

Why do hobbyists insist of violating Apples IP?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is so much other software out there that gives you the freedom do what you want with it, why do you waste your time pirating and violating Apple's copyrights and IP by making derivatives of OSX. They don't want you to do that, and they own the software, you really lack the rights to do this.

Re:Why do hobbyists insist of violating Apples IP?

[CountBrass]

I think yours is probably the most insightful comment to this article.

If you believe in 'free' you shouldn't be using Apple stuff at all: support the FSF and GNU and run applications on a free operating system.

Shame you posted anonymously.

Re:Why do hobbyists insist of violating Apples IP?

[Per Wigren]

My home computer is a Hackintosh simply because I like MacOS X, the software. I don't think I am morally wrong and I seriously don't think that I cause Apple any harm. On the contrary, me buying a copy of Snow Leopard and installing it on a home built PC gives Apple a positive net win compared to the alternative: Me not buying Snow Leopard at all. Apple gets more money, I save money by getting a much cheaper computer. I also sometimes help Open Source projects with OSX-specific patches. It's a true win-win situation! This talk about rights is just narrow minded bureaucratic nonsense, IMHO. Apple should just shut up and enjoy the money!

Re:Why do hobbyists insist of violating Apples IP?

[butlerm]

violating Apple's copyrights and IP by making derivatives of OSX

As long as you do not redistribute the result, making an adaptation of an operating system that you have legitimately acquired a copy of as an "essential step" in the use of it on "a machine" is not a violation of Apple's copyrights let alone some other amorphous "IP".

See 17 USC 117(a).

Bullshit

[rsborg]

The problem I see is not that Apple want complete control over *their* boxes, but that they want complete control over other manufacturer's boxes also.

Apple is doing NOTHING to stop Dell or HP from loading any flavor of Linux or Windows on their boxes.

Apple sells Macs and iPhones, and OSX by Apple is designated only to run on those machines. If you can get it to run on other boxes, fine (and Apple has yet to threaten or prosecute folks who make or tell you how to make a Hackintosh), but don't tell me that Apple is desiring "complete control" over other manufacturer's boxes because those companies want to sell something they don't have the rights to (OSX).

A few reasons

[Sycraft-fu]

One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's. It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys."

Another is the cult/fanboy mentality Apple works to foster. They have always marketed their stuff as being superior, and implied that you are a superior person because you buy it. They work to create this cult-like status where you are "special" for being one of the chosen few who are an Apple user. That sort of thing leads to a "They can do no wrong," kind of mentality. Fanboys very much believe that their chosen brand/company is always right, whatever they say or do is correct. As such it doesn't matter how bad the action is, they defend it.

Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special. Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.

That is really what it comes down to. Apple has a large fan base who is convinced they are the noble underdog, fighting the good fight. They don't examine their behavior objectively.

Re:A few reasons

[ColdWetDog]

That is really what it comes down to. Apple has a large fan base who is convinced they are the noble underdog, fighting the good fight. They don't examine their behavior objectively.

Bah. Most people who buy Apple stuff don't give the northbound end of a southbound rat about ownership, copyright, Pystar, Hackintoshes or anything else for that matter. It's essentially an appliance. You buy an MacBook, install whatever software you want (or not) and pick up the chicks at the local Starbucks. Or run the LHC. Or take pictures. Or whatever.

It's a tiny fraction of the computing populace that even understands your arguments. They don't examine their behavior objectively because their is nothing to examine. These folks, unlike at least some of the Slashdot audience, don't care to install OS X (or Linux or BSD) on toasters, toilets, toddlers or towers. They just boot up and go. Apple stuff lets them do that so they're good with it.

Re:A few reasons

[freedumb2000]

BS. Apples business tactics are just as vile as those of MS, everyone knows that. Apple just makes the more user-friendly machines IMHO. That's all. That's the geek factor.

Re:A few reasons

[moosesocks]

One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's.

I don't purchase computers or operating systems based upon ideology. I choose the best tool for the job, as do most consumers.

Microsoft has historically made a crappy product, while Apple's products over the past decade or so have been technically, ergonomically, and aesthetically superior (and even price-competitive, provided that you fit into the right "niche")

Sometimes I just can't bring myself to be worked up about copyright law. Apple's done some bad things; Microsoft have done some bad things; RMS has done plenty that I disagree with. I suppose that BSD can claim the greatest ideological "purity" as the license can be summarized as:

"Here's some code. Do whatever the hell you want with it. Just don't sue us, and include a copy of this message if you decide to redistribute"

In truth, the actual license isn't much longer.

Re:A few reasons

[StuartHankins]

+1 understands the issue

Re:A few reasons

[Ash-Fox]

I choose the best tool for the job, as do most consumers.

Most consumers don't even investigate their options between which bank they should open a bank account in, and you want me to believe they attempt to choose the best tool for the job?

Seriously, what?

Microsoft has historically made a crappy product, while Apple's products over the past decade or so have been technically, ergonomically, and aesthetically superior

Well, let's consider this statement. I'll talk about operating systems since that is what I am most familiar with, with Apple and Microsoft and I have done extensive development, both high level and low level on both.

Technically, well...

I'm going to skip talking about Mac OS classic, because honestly, if I start comparing the fact classic had such horrible development APIs, broken in so many places, no true multitasking capabilities against Windows which had stuff like true multi-tasking far long before, I won't be finished typing tonight.

The OpenGL implementation is truly multithreaded, however it is buggy and non-compliant to specifications (and this is ignoring all the graphics driver bugs that cause numerous other issues in OGL), meanwhile Windows has pioneered their own specification 'DirectX' and the compliant-to-specifications OpenGL.

The 'UNIX' base Apple keeps spouting out as superior is really just a BSD subsystem that runs under the XNU kernel, unfortunately the way Apple modified the Mach kernel removes the majority of advantages the Mach kernel had with regards to various schedular and security options. The sad thing is that even though OS X some how managed to pass UNIX certification (I assume they didn't have enough tests to find all the 'bad' things I found in OS X), it is not POSIX compliant. Numerous examples of this are how posix threading is screwed up with various events getting fired off in the wrong order, or how doing a fork() without exec() (completely POSIX compliant) cannot guarantee that the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe', this will cause the main thread of your application to crash in most cases. I could go on with a few other examples, but you start getting the idea of what I am getting at with it's UNIX support. So, where does Windows come into this? Since Windows NT, Windows has come with POSIX support in a POSIX subsystem, which, not only is certified, but is actually compliant to doing things the way UNIX/POSIX does.

Now, there has been some recent things going on with the fact that OSes are now moving towards 64bit, but even here, I am not impressed by what people seem to deem Apple as doing far better than Windows. On Windows, all the Windows 32bit APIs with the exception of Virtual 8086 provided by NTVDM is available on 64bit applications, on OS X... You have Cocoa, objective c.. And.. That's about it for GUI support. The amazing thing for me is that I can almost recompile the majority of Windows 32bit applications out there as 64bit without any trouble, on OS X, where Apple claims it's easy... If you didn't write your GUI in objective-c, you're screwed (hence why there is no 64bit photoshop).

So, I've brought up some low level stuff here, and, I have to say, I can't agree to your statements blankly... But, let's go with some more high level stuff. Let's say... Java. Java which is supposed to be cross platform, universal binaries etc. Well, except for OS X of course. My own experiences have shown me that from simple java applications, I can cause the system to kernel panic, the GUIs can be immensely incompatible with OS X and Apple's suggestion is to make the application OS X only by using special Aqua extensions for Java... I'm not very impressed.

Well, let's take a look at Apple's own claims about needing to restart. I've had to restart for many things on OS X. Including, Java updates, Quicktime updates, Safari updates, iTunes updates, certain codec updates (not all, but some) etc. Compared to Windows, where I am on

Re:A few reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

The scariest thing of all: this is actually what they subconsciously believe, and they have no doubt about their own subjectivity.
Coupled with media exposure and ass-pull statistics, they believe there are more people having problems with Windows, but when you take the whole Windows user base into account, the actual percentage isn't that much different at all. There are different problems on each platform (viruses come to mind), they're just not ready to accept that fact. And it's funny when you think there are probably more people who complain about windows (which is the Vocal minority) than the total number of mac users.

Re:A few reasons

[L4t3r4lu5]

I dislike MS, but I loathe Apple. I'll have nothing to do with any service, software, or hardware they provide. My iPod is second hand, so I don't give them ANY money (I use WinAmp to manage the music content on it). I only have an iPod because my car has an iPod compatible USB input and I like the use of playlists, which a USB stick doesn't allow.

I use Microsoft operating systems because getting 3D acceleration and reliable sound / wireless networking is too much of a hassle in Linux. I play PC games, so Windows is my OS.

If I could get mouse + keyboard input in games on a 360 / PS3, I'd swap and get a netbook.

Re:A few reasons

[falconwolf]

One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's. It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys."

You get anti-Apple geeks who make up any reason to justify their dislike for Apple. They never examine their tactics to see if it's any better than Apple's.

Sound familiar? Switch some words and presto. Fact is is people like or use Macs because it does what they want without a lot of hassle. Before switching from Windows to, first Linux then a Mac, I got sick and tired of all the hassles I had with bad hardware and software. Since switching after using Windows 10 years, I have not had many problems with my setup in 3 years. While I have had only one PC last more than a year without hardware problems and no PCs without software problems within a year, I have had Macs last years without problems, other than not being able to expand or upgrade them.

Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special. Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.

I have repeatedly stated I want Apple to offer midrange expandable Macs for a lot less money than Mac Pros costs. I've also said I'd like Apple to license OS X and allow clones. However Apple did try Mac clones, and lost money on them.

Falcon

Re:A few reasons

[falconwolf]

I use Microsoft operating systems because getting 3D acceleration and reliable sound / wireless networking is too much of a hassle in Linux.

I use Linux and Macs because I like being able to use what I paid for and because I hate spyware and being treated like a criminal and have my OS call home to make sure it is authorized to run.

Falcon

Apple is very special

[Steeltoe]

I have bought an (unlocked) iPhone and a 17" Macbook Pro. A few iPods are also on my conscience I must admit. The iPhone had to be unlocked. The Macbook Pro barely runs XP, after alot of fiddling with unofficial Bootcamp versions and whatnot. Why Apple can't seem to make regular updates for such software is beyond me. Maybe I have to buy the latest OS version, along with all the software again, to get updated? Oh yeah, I forgot, I probably have to buy a new computer from them as well then..

If OS X didn't try to screw you on purchasing every software you need, and was faster, it would get used, but I don't like the OS anymore. It's not UNIX either, but a bastard from the netherworlds posing as something great ;-)

Although the hardware is great and software pretty decent, I am sick and tired of the restrictions set by Apple in both software and legality. For years they have been screwing over their customers, even their most hardcore fans setting up fansites etc. Everybody seems to be getting visits from Apple's legal team.

I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again, for me, or even encourage anybody to buy something from them. In the end I will save money, and I will discourage companies like Apple playing the laws like they do. Oh, yeah, Apple's stocks will be discriminated against also.. They will not get my money again.

In short: fsck / chkdsk Apple! :-)

(If more people want to take similar pledges, that'll be cool)

I just think this will make the world a tad better. Thank you!

Re:Apple is very special

[jo_ham]

The full version of Bootcamp has worked flawlessly with every intel Mac I have ever used it on, including patching up through all the various service packs with XP - there was a hiccup with SP2 (or 3, I forget which) where it would refuse to install due to some issue with the way the partitions were laid out on the Mac HD (the XP installer just assumes by default that c:/ is the first partition without checking), but this could be fixed with a 5 second google+registry entry, or by updating a newer version of bootcamp from the software updater.

If you are still using the beta version of bootcamp that Apple had up for download and were offering for no charge at the time and are expecting them to update it then what planet are you on? The full and final version of bootcamp was bundled with 10.5 and was one of the USPs. The beta ceased to be current at that time (but can still be used - it's not time limited or anything) but has, and always will have a huge disclaimer on it saying "beta software: do not use on production hardware". You do not need a new Mac to buy 10.5 (or 10.6 now) - you can buy a full retail copy of it from anywhere that sells Mac software.

I have yet to feel "screwed over" by Apple in the many years I have used them, and I'm not the "typical" Apple customer - I do my own hardware upgrades, change my own iPod batteries, and I don't even own a turtleneck. In this particular case, Apple was defending its turf - if Coke started buying Pepsi at wholesale prices, putting it in Coke bottles and selling it on, you can be certain that Pepsi would go to court to stop that happening - this is really no different.

Apple makes no secrets about the way it protects its brand, and the way it markets, designs and licences its products. It's not like this is at all unexpected - ie, caveat emptor. Like the people who bought iPhones which are locked and heavily controlled and then complained bitterly about it - you knew before you bought it! Either buy it because it does what you want in a product, or don;t because it doesn't have the features you need. Buying it and then bitching that it doesn't do X thing, when you knew that ahead of time is just griping for the sake of it.

Re:Apple is very special

[nomadic]

If OS X didn't try to screw you on purchasing every software you need, and was faster, it would get used, but I don't like the OS anymore. It's not UNIX either, but a bastard from the netherworlds posing as something great ;-)

See, OS X is the one reason I want to buy a mac right now (trying to convince myself the 27 inch imac is not hideously overpriced, but I am not doing a good job convincing myself.) Windows is Windows (though W7 seems to be kind of decent)and Linux is ugly and the media capabilities are patchwork to the point of annoyance.

Re:Apple is very special

[gyrogeerloose]

I'm not the "typical" Apple customer - I do my own hardware upgrades, change my own iPod batteries, and I don't even own a turtleneck.

Jeeze, I don't know how many times this has been repeated here on Slashdot but some people just never seem to catch on. One more time:

Steve Jobs does not wear a turtleneck, he wears a mock turtleneck.

You got it now?

Re:Apple is very special

[falconwolf]

I hereby declare I will never ever buy anything from Apple again, for me, or even encourage anybody to buy something from them.

After using Windows PCs for years I bought a Mac because Apple offered me something I was willing to pay for. If they don't offer you what you want then don't buy from them.

Falcon

Re:Apple is very special

[LordVader717]

if Coke started buying Pepsi at wholesale prices, putting it in Coke bottles and selling it on, you can be certain that Pepsi would go to court to stop that happening

They would be absolutely delighted and ask Coke if they wish to outsource their marketing and distribution network to them too. You have no idea how business works.

Re:Apple is very special

[jo_ham]

You are dreaming if you think Pepsi would be happy with their product being sold under the Coke brand, even if Coke bought it from them wholesale and was thus still making profit on the sale - I assert that it is *you* who have no idea how business works.

Re:Apple is very special

[LordVader717]

Your naivety is amusing.
Botteling and mixing Coca-Cola is a lucrative business which companies all over the world are falling over themselves to do.
You're delusioned if you think there's one monolithic "Coca Cola" factory, or Pepsi for that matter.
These companies usually have their own line of drinks which they sell under their own label.
But they realize that they can't compete ith the coke brand, so they're happy with the extra business their contract with Coca-Cola gets them.

If coke were to purchase large amounts of finished PEPSI, they would have paid for a profit margin of the PEPSI company and their partners, which would be significant for such a prominent brand.

If they wanted Coke to taste like PEPSI they would just alter their recipe.

Re:Apple is very special

[jo_ham]

No, your naivety is amusing, attempting to defend a clearly absurd position.

Pepsi doesn't care one jot about a little extra profit from wholesale sales of pepsi (as you said, they are a global company with hundreds of products and hundreds of factories).

What they do care very much about is their brand. They care nothing that Coke is giving their shareholders profit - they don't care who buys their product. They do care enormously if you dilute the brand.

Levi did it in the UK - they stopped discount retailers like Tesco from selling Levi jeans in their stores because it affected the brand image of the jeans. Tesco were buying Levis legitimately in the US, providing profit for Levi, importing them into the UK and then selling them on in their stores. Levis took them to court to prevent them from doing this - something that was actually profitable for Levi. Sure, they sell jeans in the UK at higher prices in their own store, but Tesco opened an entirely new market for them - with much more customer exposure than is possible with just their stores and authorised outlets alone, but they didn't want Levi jeans to be considered "budget" - which is the image that they believe is presented when you buy them in a grocery store.

Of course there are many companies that bottle coke and pepsi - look on any bottle and you'll see "bottled under licence from the coca cola company" and a whole string of trademark and copyright information. They take the presentation, quality and distribution of their sugar water very seriously. If Pepsi started rebottling coke and selling it, you can be damn sure they'd be stopped from doing so.

Re:Apple is very special

[LordVader717]

What a red herring argument. Levi is concerned about jeans being sold under their name at budget prices. They used a peculiarity of Trademark law to protect their established distribution network.

You fail to mention how bottling Pepsi as CocaCola does any harm whatsoever to the Pepsi brand. If you really think that Coke wouldn't be able to get their drink taste exactly like Pepsi by their own you're even more delusioned than I thought.

Your comment about Pepsi not caring about wholesale profit is simply hilarious.

Re:Apple is very special

[jo_ham]

I'm not talking about coke making their drink taste like pepsi - I'm talking about them selling actual Pepsi under the coke brand - it's not the same thing at all, and there is a major reason that they don;t taste the same. Of course they could easily make them the same, but they do not.

I also didn't say that they don't care about wholesale profit in its entirety, but good attempt at trying to deliberately twist what I did say, which is that the small amount of wholesale profit from such a hypothetical situation would not be worth the brand damage (or perceived brand damage) that resulted.

Your bolded point abut Levi is the core of my argument - I'm glad you picked up on it. Brand is everything to companies like Levi, Pepsi and Coca Cola.

Re:Apple is very special

[LordVader717]

Considering that wholesale profit is just about the only profit they can make, I'd say that it must be significant.

And you continue to avoid explaining how Pepsi's brand is damaged by such practice. Considering that's the basis for your argument you should elaborate. If anything it would benefit. "Pepsi are so good that they are the ones making the recipe for Coke"

Duh

[Steeltoe]

What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.

What you're suggesting is insane. The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer, or just cloning the same bits and bytes. What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?

The law should not be stupid, but be interpreted according to common sense. If this is how it is, either this broken legal system needs further fixes, or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..

Re:Duh

[falconwolf]

What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.

The difference? Microsoft licenses Dell to do that, Apple does not license Pystar though.

What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?

Pystar "failed to produce "customer purchase receipts or order documents" from April 2008 (when Psystar began selling their computers with Mac OS X preinstalled) until October 2008."

Falcon

Re:Duh

[Glorat]

What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.

What you're suggesting is insane. The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer, or just cloning the same bits and bytes. What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?

This very argument was tackled by Apple. The point is that Psystar made an illegal modified master copy, which they then went on to clone onto all their PCs. The difference is that Dell were entitled to make master copies since they had a licence from Apple to do so. IMO, it's somewhat analagous to taking a Windows install, sticking a pirate key on it, then cloning it to 1000 PCs. That you've then also provided a retail Windows package doesn't help you escape.

The law should not be stupid, but be interpreted according to common sense. If this is how it is, either this broken legal system needs further fixes, or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..

The law is verbose, like a good computer program so that there is less ambiguity about what people think is common sense. Agree that sticking to FOSS will get you in less trouble

Re:Duh

[L4t3r4lu5]

The phrase you're looking for (in UK law) is the "Golden Rule." It's one of the methods of interpretation of law, alongside "Literal Rule" and "Mischief Rule". The Golden Rule looks at the strictest wording of the law as applied, and decides if it leads to an absurdity. If that is the case, it is within the power of the Judge to re-interpret the law along the lines of how Parliament would have expected it to be understood. Having a piece of shrink-wrap plastic around a DVD being the centrepoint of how this law is interpreted seems to me (non-lawyer) as an absurdity.

Alternatively, the Mischief Rule allows a Judge to decide if an action sufficiently similar to the law in question, but not specifically covered by the law, is still a breach of that law. A man standing in a flower bed using a stick to steal car keys on a hook is not technically guilty of burglary (you must enter the property to commit a burglary). However, under the Mischief Rule the Judge can say that the tool was used under his control to commit the act, purely as a means of convenience, and say that without the stick the defendant would have to enter the property to perform the same action. Therefore stealing the keys from inside the property with the stick is still birglary. Same thing here; S/He can say that the EULA stipulation and firmware requirements are to prevent the use of the software on unsupported hardware which may affect the end user experience to the detriment of Apple's image. Therefore the technicalities listed as allowing Pystar to legally create their products do not apply.

IANAL, blah blah. Opinion with a little knowledge.

They're competing against apple with Apples own...

[jimboindeutchland]

...software.

Imagine you made a device and spent the time and energy to write some really nice software for it and started happily selling your device. The somebody comes along and starts putting your software on their own cheaper hardware and starts selling that. In this case, they're using your own software as a tool to compete against you.

I don't see how would be wrong for you to want to stop that someone from using your software.

A lot of the discussion here seems to be about whether it's ok to use Apple's software on your own PC. I don't think that's totally unethical. What you do as an individual with your own computer is your business. However, starting a company and attempting to compete against them in the computer hardware market is a completely different thing. Pystar is clearly using the fact that you can buy one of their machines with OSX installed as their "unique selling proposition". Discussion about how Pystar is getting OSX onto the machine seems moot.

Go read some EULAs and have a fit

[itsdapead]

Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?

Go read the EULAs that come with all of those products, for a long list of things that you cannot do with "your" copy. Such as run the cheaper versions of Windows on any sort of virtual machine, move the OEM windows bundled with your PC onto another machine, use your educational-licence copy of Photoshop for commercial work...

The details are different, but the principle is the same: you don't own the copy you bought.

Every single other company works that way.

In your dreams. Well, maybe Ubuntu since the GPL only really kicks in if you want to modify or redistribute.

Disappointing

[aaaaaaargh!]

Apple is disappointing me more and more. I've been a Mac user for more than 15 years, but this month I'll be switching to an ordinary PC with Ubuntu on it. The new machine is already ordered. It is as powerful as a MacPro and costs half of it. (One thing that annoys me is that I need to keep my old Mac to be able to compile software for OS X, but perhaps the Hackintosh solution will help me get rid of this piece of junk.) The main reasons:

• Apple has always made sure to lock you you in to their platform, but recently they have been getting more and more aggressive. The Psystar case, iPhone locking, and the total control of the iPhone app store are just the tip of the iceberg.
• By sneaking downwards incompatibility into their developer tools and making it very hard to develop without them (with the exception of Qt, perhaps), Apple ensures that you will not be able to run new software on old computers.
• You cannot upgrade the graphics card on iMacs. Not only that, Apple only sells new iMacs with old and already outdated graphics cards, just to make sure that you will *have* to buy a new machine after 2-3 years.
• It started with those annoying and extremely unfunny Mac vs. PC ads that I asked myself: Why I should stick to a Mac? I use Linux for work anyway.And since iPods and iPhones apparently became Apple's main source of income, Apple is just not what it was before. Apple used to be for people that want to get things done, but now the company seems to be more interested in mentally retarded Twitter users as customers, a clientel to which I don't belong because I don't have or need a cell phone.

Goodbye Apple!

New laws that separate the purchase of products.

[vosester]

Personally I think we need new laws that separate the purchase of hardware and software.
So people know what they are buying, because in sales whether it be Microsoft Windows or a Netgear router you are buying software as well as the hardware.

Form my posts on /. any one can see I am a fan of Mac’s so running OS X without the hardware defeats the purpose of the platform for me.

But I can see it form the other side. What if I wanted to buy Mac hardware but want to run Linux or Windows, why should I have to pay for the development and sale price of OS X if I am not going to use it. We use the same argument against OEM’s with MS Windows.

If you switch the situation and just want the software, I can see that point as well. But I would not hold Apple responsible to support me in any way.

Who is funding Psystar?
I don’t think it’s Microsoft as that would be a dumb move ether way it goes.
I think it is one of the OEM’s myself, as they have noting to lose if this goes Apple’s way and hole lot to gain if it doesn’t.

Apple needs to stop this now before the EULA is really tested, it might go their way this time. But it will not stop, people and companies want OS X and if any thing about technology has been proven to us, is that they will find a way to run.

I think Apple should license OS X now while they have the power to put in place some restriction. They could make the license ridiculous priced and restrictive, The OEM’s would still lap it up for the chance to get rid of Windows. As for Linux the OEM’s have dabbled it this space. But they still have the 1980’s mentality of they would rather license the software than level the playing field with their competitors.

A company that licenses OS X would not be able to use Apple trademarks. But the OEM’s could call it Dell OS or something like that and it would be “OS X compatible”. They could make a range of premium computing to stay in the price range of Mac’s.

As to argument that it will kill Apple it could do, but they are in different places now and the market has changed a hole lot since then.

To Equate this to other field:

[gearloos]

This would be the same as telling me I can't put a Chevy LS6 motor in my 34 Ford Coupe. The motor by itself does nothing but put it in a car and its the heart of it. Same thing here. I'm not going to sell the car as a chevy. Whats the problem? Apple need to get a clue, as well as the rest of this $#%#'d up industry. This is the only time I can remember when it was an honor, or privilege, to be able to buy or use products from certain vendors. Apple, M$oft, Verizon, ATT, Direct TV, all come to mind. If you don't use their products EXACTLY how they say, shame on you! I guess I should start worrying about Levi as I cut up an old pair of jeans and use the rags in the garage.

Format shifting

[Jessified]

Why is this so different from format shifting? Music industry makes a CD and says you can't play this on an iPod...shouldn't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music? What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers (say, Fujitsu and Toshiba)? What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows? Anti-trust?

I don't see this as being all that different.

Re:Format shifting

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see this as being all that different.

Reality distortion field failure. Oh noes!

Re:Format shifting

[Retardical_Sam]

The core difference is between you buying a CD and putting it on your iPod when the record label says you can't, and someone else selling you an iPod with that CD on it, along with a copy of the CD. One is morally home and personal use, the other is business, and an attempt at a profit. To me, that's the big difference.

Re:Format shifting

[Jessified]

If Psystar is buying the software...then what's the problem? If someone paid for the CD and loaded it onto an ipod, then who cares?

Re:Format shifting

[gnasher719]

Why is this so different from format shifting? Music industry makes a CD and says you can't play this on an iPod...shouldn't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music? What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers (say, Fujitsu and Toshiba)? What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows? Anti-trust?

For many months the music industry allowed Amazon to sell music without DRM, while they didn't allow Apple's iTunes Music Store to do the same. I assume they had the right to do that, otherwise Apple would have sued them. This is not exactly what you asked, obviously. When you downloaded music with DRM from the iTunes Music Store, you actually only had a license to copy the music to iPods or burn them to a CD, nothing else (only iPods were capable to play the music anyway, but the license didn't allow any other players). That seems to have been legal as well. Now if someone sold CDs and I couldn't rip them and download and play the music on my iPod, I wouldn't buy the CD. A huge, huge percentage of potential customers would either ignore this, or not buy the CD. So the record company would lose lots of sales. That's why this doesn't happen.

With Microsoft, they have a monopoly in the operating system market. Apple is allowed to do things that Microsoft isn't allowed to do. (Actually, when Apple does the same thing as Microsoft, it is not the same. Like there is a difference between a six year old girl hitting you in the face and Mike Tyson doing the same thing. It just doesn't feel the same).

The last one, did you mean "only run Internet Explorer on Windows, not on MacOS X"? That's the case right now. Or did you mean "only run Internet Explorer on Windows, not Firefox"? That would be anti-competitive, because Microsoft wouldn't tell you what to do with _their_ software, but with someone else's software.

Re:Format shifting

[Retardical_Sam]

It's the re-selling that's the problem, and the profit inherent in it. And again, I'm referring to moral problem, not legal problem. Legally I think each are illegal, which is another matter altogether. But morally, I think doing anything you want with a product after you buy it (without eating into a company's profits) is legit, but re-selling their product in a way they don't intend, and making a profit from it, that's much sketchier.

Re:Format shifting

[Jessified]

That's the beauty of the first sale doctrine. You don't need permission to re-sell things you have purchased. I don't need permission to resell the chair I'm currently sitting in. If I can make a profit on the sale of this chair then why the hell not? If I can paint it another colour and make a profit, why the hell not?

I think morally and legally, companies should not be able to control what you do with products you have acquired legitimately.

Re:Format shifting

[Jessified]

I really like your six year old vs Mike Tyson analogy. That puts it in a happy light :) And it's a good point: if a company has the market cornered, there should absolutely be stricter limitations on what it can or cannot do.

(Also, I meant the IE vs Firefox comment.)

I believe format shifting is legal in the US, and I'm almost positive it's legal in Canada. I think though in the US the DMCA prevents you Americans from legally exercising that right in the case of DRMed content.

Anyways. I don't see the legal or moral basis for saying you can only run our software on our machines, other than violating questionable click-through shrink-wrapped EULAs.

Re:Format shifting

[Lars T.]

Too bad for Psystar that what they did isn't covered by the first sale doctrine.

Re:Format shifting

[falconwolf]

I think morally and legally, companies should not be able to control what you do with products you have acquired legitimately.

Would you feel the same if you wrote a book, then someone else took a copy, edited it then sold copies of the edited version? That is what Psystar is doing. Pystar has even "failed to produce "customer purchase receipts or order documents" from April 2008 (when Psystar began selling their computers with Mac OS X preinstalled) until October 2008."

Falcon

Re:Format shifting

[Jessified]

"Would you feel the same if you wrote a book, then someone else took a copy, edited it then sold copies of the edited version?"

What if I bought a chair, painted it, and resold it? This is exactly what happens with remixes of music and I think that should be perfectly allowable.

Big Content wants to treat their goods as tangible by calling pirating "theft," but then they say "oh we are licensing not selling," and they don't want to have to deal with first sale doctrine. Pick one, either they are tangible or not. You wouldn't license a chair to me, would you?

If Psyster didn't buy the copies of OSX, then that is one thing. But what I'm arguing is in the event that they did purchase it, or if another company repeated the same thing but purchased the software.

Apple is ..

[kuzb]

.. evil. This is nothing new. They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.

It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.

Re:Apple is ..

[Spatial]

They're amoral, not evil. Almost all companies are, especially large ones.

Their criterion for taking action is solely this: Does the end result garner more profit than inaction?

Moral, ethical and legal concerns are irrelevant provided that this condition is met. They usually appear to follow those guidelines, but only because failing to conform costs a great deal of money. Be it through a PR disaster decimating sales, a heavy fine, or other penalty.

Re:Apple is ..

[falconwolf]

.. evil. This is nothing new. They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.

It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.

Would you rather be able to buy Apple products or not? Nobody has yet proven Apple can survive if they allowed OS X to run on any PC, but they did lose money when they licensed Mac clones.

Falcon

Re:Apple is ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeeze dude, you're just fighting the good fight in this thread. Go take a break. It's a holiday!

Re:Apple is ..

[kuzb]

The fact that their model can't stand up to hardware lock-in is a sign that perhaps they need to rethink their model (which for mac computers is arguably bad) instead of cramming it down the throats of their customers. Many people would like to use OS X. Many people do not want an overpriced mac.

Many people I'm sure would continue to buy computers from Apple despite the fact that you could install OS X on a PC.

Re:Apple is ..

[falconwolf]

Many people would like to use OS X. Many people do not want an overpriced mac.

1999 calling, it wants its mime back. For years Mac prices have been comparable to Windows PC prices. The problem with Macs is that Apple does not offer a midrange upgradeable and expandable Mac. However Steve Jobs has said he does not want to enter that market. While I disagree with it it is his, and Apple's board as well as Apple stockholder's, decision. The fact that Apple was dying, while licensing Mac clones, when Jobs was asked to come back and is now making profits under his leaderships shows he's doing something right.

Falcon

Perfect example

[Anonymous Coward]

This perfectly illustrates the reason I REFUSE to buy an Apple computer. I will not be forced to buy a computer just for an OS. I build my own computers, and I refuse to give any money to a company that tries to dictate what I can and can't do with my machine. Why on earth should I spend $1600 on a decent iMac, when I can build an equivalent system for $800-900!?!

What is is not what should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't care what the law says. I don't believe the law is right. I can believe that Psystar is violating the law, I just don't care.

They bought copies of OS X. I don't give a damn about a EULA that should not be enforceable (even if it *IS* enforceable), because I think it's wrong of Apple to be able to control what people do that way. They paid for the software, they shouldn't be able to play licensing trickery that, even though you paid for it, you can only use it in certain Apple-approved ways.

Frankly, in some ways I'm glad that Microsoft crushed Apple. Although Apple makes superior products, they're even worse control freaks than Microsoft about what you may and may not do with their software and I hate that about them, even if their products are great.

Simple Solution to this Mess

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a simple solution to this whole Apple/Psystar/M$/Linux mess, embrace communism on a worldwide scale under a one world government.

Should've stayed with another architecture then...

[Hamsterdan]

Back in the PPC days, you couldn't install OS X on anything else than a MAC (excluding licensed UMAX and MOTOROLA machines). The day Steve went X86, you just knew installing OS X on a PC would be possible (same hardware)

Heck, I'm typing this on 10.5.8 running on an AMD Athlon X2 :)

If you buy a standard PC with similar hardware, it's quite easy to run OS X on it.

Apple needs to have a real desktop and not court t

[Joe The Dragon]

Apple needs to have a real desktop and not court to to sport psystar.

If they had a real desktop at $800-$1500 then psystar would be dead with out apple needing to go to court to do it.

Standing ovation...

[rts008]

*claps heartily*
Well said!

BTW, the '34 Ford coupe sounds like an awesome project, if it is more than 'just a car analogy' for this discussion.
Hot-rodders are hackers too! :-)

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

AMG is a prime example, they sold modified Mercedes and not only did they not get the pants sued off them but Daimler actually wound up buying them.

Re:It's ok,Christmas sale, free shipping shoes

[coolforsale128]

http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.

You're missing the point,

[falconwolf]

I'm not talking about copying and distributing, I'm talking about doing what you want with something for your personal use.

No, you're missing the point, Apple has never gone after anyone for making a hackintoch for their own use. Apple has only gone after those who want to distribute hackintoches. And that is what corresponds to you copying "Bob the pop singers' latest CD".

Falcon

Are the trendy Mac users that dumb?

[reidconti]

I went back to college in 2002-2006 (incidentally buying my first Mac in 2002 after 7 years of exclusive desktop Linux use, and I hate that I have to even throw in this disclaimer) and over that period for the first time noticed Macs being considered 'cool.'

Yet you give your trendy straw men (and women) too little credit. Just because they're not geeks and don't know much about computers, even if they bought a Mac because all of their friends said it was the cool thing to do, they can damn well tell you a lot of things they don't like about Windows. Ask them. I've heard it. These are the very technophobes who let their systems get overrun with spyware and adware, who got viruses while everyone on Slashdot bragged about the number of years they spent in their mom's basement *not* getting viruses (*cough*) while using XP sans AV software.

So if they're using a Mac, and it works for them, doesn't it mean their choice was justified?

I hate to think of what you think of all of the engineers using Macs.

It's not your property, it's Apple's.

[falconwolf]

They sold you a licence to use it.

If Apple relied on that, selling a license to OS X and not OS X itself, Apple would be in trouble. At least one federal judge has ruled that when a person buys software they are not buying a license. A federal judge has already ruled against Autodesk when Autodesk tried to stop resellers from selling Autodesk software such as AutoCAD on eBay. Autodesk claimed they sold a license not the software but the judge said otherwise.

However Apple does not rely on that. Apple relies in part on copyright law. Pystar makes at least two unauthorized copies of OS X. It also modifies OS X. Both break copyright laws.

Falcon

Re:Apple needs to have a real desktop and not cour

[StuartHankins]

So you're saying that Lambourghini needs to have a 30K version because you can't afford their current models? That's what you're basing this on, the price of the item and your willingness to pay it? The logic, it does not work.

Apple isn't a monopoly and they have a (relatively) tiny market share. They can charge whatever they want, albeit charging whatever the market will bear works best in the long run. The market will bear their prices... as proven by Apple's profitability. They don't want/need an $800 "real" (your words, not mine) desktop. You either pay their prices or you don't. They have many others lined up behind you who won't think twice about their prices. If you can't justify it, no sweat, use something else. It's not like you need to feel like less of a man because their product wasn't right for you.

So was it wrong when Compaq cloned the IBM BIOS?

[falconwolf]

Pystar also modified as well as mass copied OS X. When asked Pystar couldn't even provide receipts proving they paid for OS X.

Falcon

$2500 for a gt 120 and 3gb or ram with 640GB hdd?

[Joe The Dragon]

$2500 for a gt 120 and 3gb or ram with 640GB hdd? The older mac pro went for $2000 that was a little but of a ripoff but add the $500 to get the power of a $1200-$1500 desktop with less ram and much weaker video card? with a smaller HDD?

and $599.00 for 2GB with on board video and only 160GB HDD you must be blind to see the gap. Why not have a $1000 bigger mini with a video card with 256 of it's own ram, full size hdd and desktop core i5 / core 2 cpu? a little over priced but not super like the mac pro.

where is the mate imac??????? and people don't want a mate over lay THEY WANT TO USE THERE OWN DISPLAY.

Although Apple makes superior products

[falconwolf]

And how long do you think OS X will be superior if anyone could install it on plain vanilla hardware? People complain about how MS Windows is unstable and doesn't work well with some hardware. By controlling their own hardware, yes Apple is a hardware as well as software company, they are able to make they work well together.

Another thing many people overlook is that Apple does not compeat directly against Microsoft, and MS has shown what it will do against competitors. MS once threatened Apple with canceling MS Office for Macs, and as much as many people know it is not true many people believe they need MS Office.

Falcon

Apple is disappointing me more and more.

[falconwolf]

I don't like some of what Apple does. Nah, let me rephrase that, I wish Apple would do some things Steve Jobs refuses to let the company do. Such as make and sell a mid-range expandable Mac.

I've been a Mac user for more than 15 years, but this month I'll be switching to an ordinary PC with Ubuntu on it.

After using Windows PCs almost exclusively for more than 10 years I switched. I first got a desktop, er Tower, PC with Linux preinstalled. When I get around to it I'll rebuild it into a server. And when I got a new laptop I got a MacBook Pro. Right now it's running Leopard however when I'm ready I'll install Snow Leopard, the DVD is in arms reach, as well as Ubuntu. I'm not sure if I'll install Jaunty or Karmic though. I'm still researching so I can lay out an upgrade plan. Once I have the plan I'll dualboot Snow Leopard and Ubuntu.

You cannot upgrade the graphics card on iMacs.

Can you upgrade the graphics card in other all-in-ones? Looking at Dell's XPS One I don't see where its graphics is upgradeable either. Their Studio One 19 isn't either. I bet if I looked more I'll come up with more all-in-ones without upgradeable graphics.

Apple only sells new iMacs with old and already outdated graphics cards

iMacs come with different cards. The 21.5" model has the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and the GeForce 9 Series came out in 2008. The technical summary says the 9400 GT came out in August 2008, that makes it all of 15 months old. The 27" iMac comes with a card from 2008 as well.

Falcon

Re:Apple is disappointing me more and more.

[aaaaaaargh!]

Well, yes, you've got some good points there. In restrospective my post sounded a bit too negative. However, the problem is that most people that don't do graphics/audio processing really just need a powerful computer for gaming. For ordinary text and email processing work, even a netbook suffices. From a gaming perspective, the graphic cards in the Macs you've mentioned are indeed outdated already now. I don't even want an all-in-one, but Apple gives me no choice (except if you think the prohibitively expensive MacPros are a real choice). That's the problem. As you said, there should be an upgradable mid-range Mac.

I'd still recommend iMacs to anyone who needs a nice working machine with good design, but to be honest regarding the pure functionality Ubuntu does just as well.

Re:Apple is disappointing me more and more.

[falconwolf]

most people that don't do graphics/audio processing really just need a powerful computer for gaming.

Gaming, where Windows rules, isn't a need it's a want.

I'd still recommend iMacs to anyone who needs a nice working machine with good design, but to be honest regarding the pure functionality Ubuntu does just as well.

As I said in the post you replied to I plan on installing Ubuntu on my Mac, but I don't think I'll get the functionality from it I want. See I don't work right now, I'm disabled, but I'm hoping to start a photography business. I can't afford Photoshop CS and GIMP does not cut it for what I want. I am willing to try KDE's Krita though, so when I install Ubuntu I'll install KDE as well as Gnome. If Krita does not work, GIMP is good for web work and so is Krita but I want to print, then I'll have to try to get Photoshop. Perhaps by buying an old upgradeable version on eBay.

Quite simply I may not get the functionality I am looking for in Ubuntu, if not then I'll be stuck with Photoshop in OS X. And forget CS4, some people can get CS2 to run in WINE and or CrossOver but it's not really for those without the skills.

Falcon

Re:New laws that separate the purchase of products

[falconwolf]

What if I wanted to buy Mac hardware but want to run Linux or Windows, why should I have to pay for the development and sale price of OS X if I am not going to use it. We use the same argument against OEM's with MS Windows.

If you switch the situation and just want the software, I can see that point as well. But I would not hold Apple responsible to support me in any way.

Apple sells hardware and software, do you want laws barring the sell of both? Apple hardware sells help fund the development of OS X.

Falcon

Apple need to get a clue

[falconwolf]

Apple tried Mac clones and lost money.

Falcon

And you don't own the software

[falconwolf]

At least one federal judge disagrees with you.

Falcon

Where were you for CueCat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where were you for CueCat? They could have done with you then.

Or Lexmark's printer ink cartridges?

Or the garage door remote companies?

How about Car manufacturers with this government raping of their engine management information on the cards?

All of those had had their method of running their business (lock customers in and charge them out the wazoo) but you were silent. You may even have cheered on the breaking of their business methods.

But when Apple does it...

And this was a clean room implementation too

[Anonymous Coward]

And this was a clean room implementation too. They worked out what make the OS install and used it in their bios. They didn't hack the Apple Bios any differently than Compaq did.

Then again, Compaq didn't clone Apple's Bios calls, did they...

This IS someone making a hackintosh

[Anonymous Coward]

This IS someone making a hackintosh for their own use. Pystar are doing so. Then, as allowed under first sale doctrine, selling what they own on.

Or can't you sell your own stuff on any more? Or is it just if it's Apple branded stuff you can't sell it on?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Where is this anti-competitive behavior?

[falconwolf]

Pretty sure he was referring to Apple buying "Logic Studio" and then cutting off the Windows line.

Think about that, Apple discontinues Logic Studio for Windows. But Apple did not prevent people from using other music production software, on Macs or Windows. Sonar, Cubase, and Reaper all run on Windows. The free and open source Audacity runs on *unix, OS X, and Windows.

Falcon

Re:Where is this anti-competitive behavior?

[somersault]

Sure there are alternatives available - but buying a product line then cutting support for users using competing OSes is quite "anti-competitive" in my book.

Re:Where is this anti-competitive behavior?

[dontmakemethink]

Let's see you switch from Logic to an alternative editor against your will, see if your mood changes.

For those that don't know, Logic uses the most eccentric interface in pro audio software, making it the hardest software to switch to or away from. It is one of the few editors that began as a MIDI editor and added audio capabilities afterwards, most others are the other way around. It has never actually had a complete rebuild since the clunky original MIDI editor written by Germans that clearly had no appreciation for what is intuitive to studio operators. I had the distinct displeasure of starting out in computer audio using Logic Audio 2.5.2. It's come a long way, but... dayam.

What if I bought a chair, painted it,

[falconwolf]

and resold it?

I see you didn't answer my question. Could that be because you don't have a good counter argument?

Falcon

Re:What if I bought a chair, painted it,

[Jessified]

I did address your points, actually. I am not entirely sure is Psystar did this, but regardless, if I buy a copy of windows, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be allowed to modify that copy and resell it. I'm not suggesting to buy one copy and resell five. Like if I buy a chair I should be allowed to modify it and resell it. If that's not okay, then there is an implicit recognition that software is not a tangible good.

No need to get inflammatory, I'm interested in having an intelligent debate. If you aren't that's alright, just let me know instead of being rude.

corporations

[falconwolf]

I think corporations exists for the shareholders not us...no?

Corporations exist for the common or public good. If a corporation does not benefit them it's charter can be revoked.

Falcon

Apple is a bunch of dicks

[falconwolf]

Yea, because people want to stay in business they're a bunch of dicks.

Falcon

Anti-Apple Fanboys = Tea Partiers?

[Swift2001]

There's just something in their craw. I see nice new 27" iMacs I'd love to own, they see a tyranny and a conspiracy against their freedom! Kind of like thinking that health care reform = Dachau.

Good points,

[falconwolf]

but by your reasoning Psystar should be able to continue business by installing the copies individually from CDs and then introduce their modifications.

Not even. Psystar doesn't make Apple hardware, only Apple and their contractors make Apple hardware. As for modifications, that breaks copyright.

Falcon

Re:Good points,

[LordVader717]

As for modifications, that breaks copyright.

Bullcrap. If I have a lawful copy I can modify it as much as I want. Copying it afterwards is of course not permitted.

Re:Good points,

[Mr2001]

As for modifications, that breaks copyright.

False. Modifying software ("creating an adaptation") to make it work on your hardware is explicitly allowed by 17 USC 117.

Re:Good points,

[falconwolf]

False. Modifying software ("creating an adaptation") to make it work on your hardware is explicitly allowed by 17 USC 117.

False, 17 USC 117 only allows adaptation only with the authorization of the copyright holder. Specifically see "(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.-- Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." I put the pertinent part in bold.

Falcon

Re:Good points,

[Mr2001]

False, 17 USC 117 only allows adaptation only with the authorization of the copyright holder.

You've seriously misunderstood what the law says.

There would be no point in writing a law that says "you can make adaptations with the copyright holder's permission", because you can do that anyway. The normal state of affairs is that you need permission to make adaptations or other derivative works. The point of 17 USC 117 is to make an exception to the normal state of affairs.

I put the pertinent part in bold.

Let me clear that up for you: "Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner."

You can create the adaptation without the copyright holder's authorization. What you can't do is "transfer" it, but "transfer" in this case doesn't mean physically transfer, it means transfer ownership. Section 117 allows you to have someone else make the adaptation for you ("it is not an infringement [...] to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation"). You just can't make one for yourself and then give or sell it to someone else.

Re:New laws that separate the purchase of products

[vosester]

Miss my point friend.. I want laws that say they have to show the price for the hardware and the software when I buy. So I can clearly see the price I am paying for both sales. And if I want to buy them separately of each other I can. This will stop the bundling of Windows and OS X with hardware.

If I don't want OS X why should I have to pay for it simple as that. I like OS X, but I don't like Windows, It would be small minded of me to say Windows bundling should stop and not too say anything about OS X just because I happen to like the software.

For the me it doesn't matter because I going use OS X the same way it doesn't matter to the boat load of Windows user that it comes bundle with their PC or laptop as they are going to use it. but on the other side when I get a new laptops, I hate have to dodge the windows tax.

It all about the perspective of want you want form your purchase.

Re:New laws that separate the purchase of products

[falconwolf]

If I don't want OS X why should I have to pay for it simple as that.

You don't have to pay for OS X, you only pay if you buy a Mac. And haven't you heard Macs are overpriced?

when I get a new laptops, I hate have to dodge the windows tax

What? Do you hate dodging the Windows Tax? You don't have to, just buy a laptop with Windows. Or do you mean you have to buy another laptop so you avoid paying for Window when you buy a laptop? There are a number of laptops with Linux not Windows. For instance Dell sells them.

Falcon