Slashdot Mirror


Psystar Activation Servers Down?

An anonymous reader writes "I purchased Rebel EFI in support of Psystar's crusade back in October. Just 3 short months later, I have no support. I found this out when I upgraded my hard drive and installed Snow Leopard using Rebel EFI. The program can no longer 'phone home' to activate or download/install drivers. This is a direct contradiction to Psystar's promise posted on their website: 'Psystar will continue to support all of its existing customers of hardware and software through this transitional period. Warranties on hardware will continue to be honored as long the customer has a valid warranty. Rebel EFI support for existing customers, as always, will remain exclusively available through email and the built-in ticket interface.' Has anyone else run into this issue? It has been 9 days with no response from Psystar by e-mail or phone."

245 comments

  1. One moment please. by tacarat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Our Apple Certified Genius Ninjas have your IP address and are on their way over to assist.

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    1. Re:One moment please. by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Funny

      Our Apple Certified Genius Ninjas have your IP address and are on their way over to assist.

      Ignoring the fact that "apple certified genius" is an oxymoron, I don't see how sending ninjas to my door is going to help them any: Many computer enthusiasts also have a healthy collection of guns. But then, that's Apple for you -- never doing the market research...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:One moment please. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Apple Certified Genius Ninjas

      One of those words does not fit in there.... Tip: It starts with G. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:One moment please. by sakdoctor · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ninjas don't scare me because I am a pirate.

    4. Re:One moment please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But ninjas defeat pirates ten out of ten times.

      You should be scared. Unless you like defeat, that is.

    5. Re:One moment please. by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Name one film where the guy with the gun came out on top of a bunch of ninjas.

      Christ, pirates have *cannons* and we still argue about which one would win >.>

    6. Re:One moment please. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Many computer enthusiasts also have a healthy collection of guns.

      Guns 0, Ninja 1.

      Any Pirate knows that guns are useless against a Ninja, you need a proper cutlass in order to deal with those black hooded landlubbers. However due to Apple's love affair with shiny white plastic their ninjas are as easy to spot as imperial storm troopers, which means any Pirate sufficiently skilled with their blunderbuss may send one or two of the scurvy dogs to Davy Jones before they arrive.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re:One moment please. by MBaldelli · · Score: 1

      Ninjas don't scare me because I am a pirate.

      That's all right. Pirates don't scare me because I'm a Ninja.

      --
      "The truth points to itself." - Kosh, Babylon5
    8. Re:One moment please. by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      Raiders of the Lost Ark. I know, technically not a ninja, but same idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE

    9. Re:One moment please. by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      That's no where near a ninja – had it have been a ninja, he would never have seen it.

    10. Re:One moment please. by schon · · Score: 1

      that's Apple for you -- never doing the market research

      Oh come on - as any Mac fanboy knows, Apple does market research all the time.

      They only survey one person, and whatever he says goes - his name is Jobs.

      I believe their Market Research division is called "You will like it because we said so."

  2. Never pay money... by feepness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to join a crusade.

    1. Re:Never pay money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never pay your own money to join a crusade. Copy the RIAA and get your government/customers to pay.

    2. Re:Never pay money... by Mooga · · Score: 1

      ...when you can do it for free.

      --
      ~ Mooga
    3. Re:Never pay money... by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Or do what the Islamists do: get your enemies to pay for your crusade.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    4. Re:Never pay money... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is precisely why I'm no longer a Mac enthusiast.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:Never pay money... by davester666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because Pystar shut down their activation servers?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Never pay money... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I was no longer interested in paying money to be a part of the Apple crusade.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  3. Live and learn by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lots of people thought that the German National Socialist party was going to be able to turn the German economy around, restore Germany's relevance in the world, and ultimately defeat the countries that put them in that situation at the Treaty of Versailles.

    Look, not every horse can place.

    1. Re:Live and learn by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Hey, they placed.

      Last is a place :P

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    2. Re:Live and learn by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      BadAnalogyGuy, this has to be the most creative application of Godwin's Law seen on Slashdot in recent history. Well done.

    3. Re:Live and learn by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      and ultimately defeat the countries that put them in that situation at the Treaty of Versailles.

      The country that defeated them[1] was not a signatory to the Versailles treaty, so technically they achieved that aim.

      [1] Hint: aims achieve YOU!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Live and learn by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Semi-seriously, I'd say they still finished ahead of Poland.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Live and learn by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Strangely, they may have accomplished the first two. The allies at least realized that it was their tough provisions in Versailles that led to it being possibility for a rouge movement like the Nazi's to take power, leading to their friendlier approach after WWII to develop [West] Germany rather than punish it. So the Nazi's did help turn the economy around and make Germany a European power again, if only by their defeat. This might even be relavant in this situation. This crusade on Apple may not have yielded anything productive in and of itself since Apple was in its [current] legal rights to protect their IP, but if Apple ever does become more popular in a given market and faces anti-trust litigation, this incident could be cited as evidence of Apple's unwillingness to allow any competition against it's platform.

    6. Re:Live and learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, I forgot about them...

    7. Re:Live and learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I deny Apple Anti-Competitive Practices. That stuff didn't actually happen. Just ask the President of Iran; Imadinnerjacket.

    8. Re:Live and learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, you definitely gotta be wary of those makeup movements such as Rouge and Eye Liner. The Kohl movement is especially dangerous.

    9. Re:Live and learn by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      ...for a rouge movement...

      If your movements are rouge, you'd better get that checked. It's probably just hemorrhoids, but it could be a sign of colon cancer....

      Ba-dump bump.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:Live and learn by mog007 · · Score: 1

      They never defeated the UK. They bombed the ever loving shit out of England, but they never invaded, let alone conquered it.

    11. Re:Live and learn by mog007 · · Score: 1

      The Nazis did a pretty good job of building up Germany's economy when they were in power, too. Gearing up for war is a quick way to build up your economy quickly. Of course, when the war is over the bubble usually bursts and a recession or depression hits, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

    12. Re:Live and learn by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Oh, and with regards to Nazi Germany, I think a closer parallel to the rethinking of the Versailles strategy would be Apple looking at the rise of Psystar and reconsidering policies, e.g. taking the stats about who installed Rebel EFI and on what hardware, then using that to figure out if there are ways to improve their product line to better attract those customers.

      Of course, odds are, such info would be blindingly obvious in a completely useless way (e.g. "people are slapping it on cheap $200 beige boxes that they mostly cobbled together from parts of the now-defunct previous $200 beige box"), and as such, might not be all that helpful unless Apple decided to buy a PC maker and rebranded their products as low-end Macs under the Lemon brand name or something.... :-D

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:Live and learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote Meatloaf "Two outta three ain't bad."

      For Mods and avoiding the OT - (paraphrased from GGP) Turn German economy around and restore Germany's relevance in the world.

    14. Re:Live and learn by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      a rouge movement like the Nazi's

      Nazis are brown, red is for Commies!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    15. Re:Live and learn by BertieBaggio · · Score: 1

      They bombed the ever loving shit out of England,

      *taps mog007 on the shoulder*

      The rest of the UK that was bombed the shit out of would like to have a word with you.

      --
      If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
    16. Re:Live and learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the topic of nazis, let me be the grammar nazi to point out, apostrophe does in fact not mean "warning, an s is upcoming".

    17. Re:Live and learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK ran away and waited for the USA to rescue them (again). If you call that winning, you're a retard.

    18. Re:Live and learn by Swift2001 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, this metaphor is too ridiculous to live.

    19. Re:Live and learn by mog007 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of bombings on Scotland or Wales, just England, so I apologize if I offended any limeys.

    20. Re:Live and learn by BertieBaggio · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of bombings on Scotland or Wales, just England, so I apologize if I offended any limeys.

      Yep, and Northern Ireland too. Clydebank, part of Glasgow (ish), where a significant amount of shipbuilding went on was particularly badly hit. There is allegedly still an unexploded bomb in the basement or foundations of a hospital a few miles away from where I live.

      No need to apologise, just thought I'd inform you as your sig implies you like to learn new things.

      For anyone else interested, start reading here:

      --
      If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
    21. Re:Live and learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better to retreat and regroup than have your armies wiped out.

    22. Re:Live and learn by hmar · · Score: 1

      No one called it winning, just not getting defeated.

  4. How could the outcome be good? by illumnatLA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really don't see how anyone in their right mind could honestly expect that Psystar was going to survive aggressively going up against Apple such as they did. Be glad you got the amount of use that you did out of the pay version of Rebel EFI. IIRC, RebelEFI is based on a open source EFI... can't remember the name, but I'm sure a fellow slashdotter will mention it.

    --
    Web hosting that doesn't suck!Dreamhost
    1. Re:How could the outcome be good? by TJamieson · · Score: 5, Informative

      PC-EFI (an EFI emulation layer), FakeSMC, and other stuff based around boot-132; a lot of work from a guy named netkas but many people contributed to other drivers, etc. Rebel EFI included *at least* PC-EFI and boot-132-derived works; that also put them in direct violation of APSL, so they were screwed one way or another.

      --
      For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
    2. Re:How could the outcome be good? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      There's rumors that Psystar was funded by the major PC makers (Dell, HP, Gateway, or the like) because here's what the situation was.

      A: Very likely was the chance EULAs would be proven legal by a court, creating some case law that didn't exist before in the process.
      B: In a longshot, Apple's EULA would be overturned, creating case law that could be used to kill off many clauses in other ELUAs. Bad news everyone, all ELUAs would fall, and that would break up Microsoft among the other damage.

      Now why would they fund Psystar... It's like betting on a single number at extra large roulette wheel. Yep, there's still the house advantage of green spaces, but there's still a huge payoff if the very unlikey event falls your way. Hmm... wanna play? They did. They lost. But the chance of winning times the multiple of the payout if they did seemed attractive to them so it was worth playing.

    3. Re:How could the outcome be good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bought something that deliberately violated another company's terms of service. Anyone with their eyes open knew that Psystar was a gonner from the get go, even if they made nice stuff. It's too bad to see them lose, but there was never really any hope for them. Complaining about their loss seems silly, unless one was so naive that they stood a chance.

    4. Re:How could the outcome be good? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1, Funny

      In response to your sig, what if you were coding some sort of personal finance system and you had several PINs to keep track of? Wouldn't the index of those PINs be a PIN Number? Or a device that manfactured ATMs be an ATM machine?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    5. Re:How could the outcome be good? by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1

      I would call those conspiracy theories rather than rumors. Either way, they have about as much factual foundation as "rumors" that the Apollo moon landings were faked.

  5. Hard to tell by Threni · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What the hell is Psystar? Are we expected to know? Google it?

    1. Re:Hard to tell by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think she was one of the new X-men.

    2. Re:Hard to tell by maxume · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you have a reasonable plan.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Hard to tell by sa1lnr · · Score: 2, Informative
    4. Re:Hard to tell by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

      Psylocke is hot.

    5. Re:Hard to tell by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I think she was one of the new X-men.

      Ahh, the ex-men, the Brooklyn-based support group for post-op transsexuals.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:Hard to tell by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That has to be one of the worst written wikipedia articles I have ever read.

    7. Re:Hard to tell by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Probably get flamed for saying this, but I got karma: Psystar was a lame company that tried to do an end run around the Apple EULA by buying retail OSX and installing it on basic PCs, which there is a market for because Steve Jobs refuses to acknowledge that since Woz left there is still a large market for a moderately priced Apple tower with expansion slots.

      That said the sad part IMHO is the probably could have got away with it, or at least made the courts seriously debate the limits of EULAs, if they just had even a thimbleful of common sense. Instead of installing OSX directly, they should have instead "prepped" the HDD with EFI, along with a script that would have answered any questions during installation, but NOT installed the actual OS. That way the customer would have to break the seal on the OSX box and insert the disc, then simply walk away for 30 minutes while it installed.

      Since they weren't breaking the seal or actually installing anything made by Apple that would have given them a way to argue that they were simply selling a whitebox with tools and it was the customer who was deciding what OS to install. to give themselves an even better leg to stand on they could have also wrote a similar script for Windows and Ubuntu and offered both as an option, then it would have come down strictly to the EULA, as Psystar would have been simply offering a choice of three OSes that anyone can buy boxed at retail, and the customer was deciding what to run him/herself.

      Instead they imaged it which even those that hate EULAs knew was a no-no and gave them exactly jack squat chance in court. If the guy who wrote TFA actually gave them money...well there is a saying about certain kinds of people and their money being soon parted, isn't there?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re:Hard to tell by Threni · · Score: 1

      Ah - a small company in America which sells computers. Bigtime. I stand by my original, sarcastic comments. When reporting, on an internationally targeted website, on a insignificant company which only operates in one region, it's probably worth spending half a sentence on a short summary of who they are any why anyone should care.

    9. Re:Hard to tell by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      That small company was all over tech news around the world on multiple occasions. Slashdot isn't really that internationally targeted, either.

    10. Re:Hard to tell by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      I have to admit you're right on that point.

  6. Good for you by RedK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems you needed a lesson in respect of other's hard work. Now you've learned the hard way that it doesn't pay to try and rip off someone.

    Speaking seriously though, after the injunction that included RebelEFI, what did you think was going to happen ? Why even purchase a product that requires activation when all it is, is a rip off of an open source product ? I'm betting there's going to be a lot of flames in this discussion.

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    1. Re:Good for you by Fallingwater · · Score: 1

      Chinese electronic counterfeiters beg to differ. Sometimes I wonder if more money is made by Apple, or collectively by the Chinese factories churning out cheap iPod clones at a rate of a bazillion per hour...

    2. Re:Good for you by RedK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The chinese iPod rip offs don't use Apple's software.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    3. Re:Good for you by Donkey_Hotey · · Score: 1

      And that's a bad thing?

      --
      (There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
    4. Re:Good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you want decent software, yes.

    5. Re:Good for you by ElusiveMind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Took the words out of my mouth. You BUY a product from people set on circumventing both a license and technology. Then you have to activate it (to prevent piracy of their product - oh the irony). And then they go out of business. Stick with the legitimate product and you don't lose. Oh ... and if you purchased to join the crusade, then allow me to hand your head back to you - unattached of course. Your side lost.

    6. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Err, what?! Apple "fanbois" pay money to Apple, abide by the EULA - why would Apple want to screw them over?! You're not thinking.

      I adore the way people on your side are so "self righteous", let's look at the facts:

      Psystar sold PCs, with some software derived from Open Source, with Apple's upgrade version of their OS, thumbing their nose at the EULA, and argued because you COULD do it, then it SHOULD be legal. How the heck they ever thought that was going to fly I'll never understand. And no it wasn't a "full version" of the OS - you obtain the right to run Mac OS X when you buy a Mac, and at no other time, so unless there was a Mac in the box too (wiped) I don't see how they ever thought it was going to be "OK".

      You're right companies exist to make money, Apple "cares" about it's customers because it knows that doing this will mean they'll return to buy more product. Yes, they'll even be happy to pay a little more for it. This is a recipe for success that the rest of the industry seems to have forgotten, in their "race to the bottom" they've cut everything. You want a decent PC? You probably need to build it yourself, because you buy one prebuilt it'll have horrible build quality and more bloatware than any sane person can stand. You build it yourself, you get to choose the quality (maybe a keyboard that isn't totally horrible). I mean think about a new PC, what's the first thing you need to do? Burn a set of recovery disks - what the hell?! How much does not supplying a restore DVD actually save? You pay more for the blank media!

      So let's not talk nonsense, if you know nothing about computers, don't want to build one, but actually want something nice - a Mac is probably your best bet. That horrible Psystar? No so much.

    7. Re:Good for you by Evil+Shabazz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure there's a reason the guy submitted this anonymously - he didn't want the world being able to associate even a user name with an action so monumentally stupid. I wonder if he got pissed off when that $20 copy of Windows he bought during his last visit to Shanghai didn't activate when he got home, either.

      --
      Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
    8. Re:Good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Others hard work?

      What bullshit. They paid for the software, and they can use it on whatever hardware they own if it runs. The bullshit EULA is meaningless.

    9. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Psystar sold PCs, with some software derived from Open Source

      Which is perfectly legal. Even the GPL allows selling the software. Got to release the source of course, but you can sell it.

      with Apple's upgrade version of their OS, thumbing their nose at the EULA, and argued because you COULD do it, then it SHOULD be legal. How the heck they ever thought that was going to fly I'll never understand. And no it wasn't a "full version" of the OS - you obtain the right to run Mac OS X when you buy a Mac, and at no other time, so unless there was a Mac in the box too (wiped) I don't see how they ever thought it was going to be "OK".

      See, that's a legal trick I have absolutely zero respect for.

      Apple was getting paid as their software was getting bought -- they just made sure there was no possible legal way to get the software without getting the hardware as well. I bet if Psystar offered to pay Apple extra for the "full version" they'd refuse to take the money. Then when Psystar used the only thing they had available they sued them. It's a dirty tactic. First they refuse the money, then they sue you for not paying them the money they refused to take.

      IMO, EULAs in general, and especially the way Apple used theirs in this case should be illegal and void.

      Now, that Psystar hypocritically went and added DRM to their stuff is bad as well, but I still think that the crux of what they were trying to do should be legal.

    10. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But you never lose the right to say "stuff that" and not buy the product - just because you don't like the deal offered doesn't mean you have the right to ignore the terms! If I create something, and say "you must x to have my product" you've got a choice: "Do x" or walk away... You don't get the right to have the product just because you want it!

      And if you do, I want a Ferrari (I just happen to think the price is unreasonable).

    11. Re:Good for you by RedK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, during discovery, Psystar failed to produce any proof that they did purchase the copies of OS X they sold. Not to mention everyone of the about 700 PCs they sold was imaged from an imaging server and thus used a single copy (which was unlawful).

      Finally, they were found guilty of copyright infrigment because they made a derivative work (changed Apple's copy protection kext, "Dont Steal MacOS X") which they put on this imaging server, thus engaging in unlawful distribution of an unauthorised derivative work.

      So maybe you should get the facts about the case before you judge Psystar as some kind of good guy.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    12. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      But you never lose the right to say "stuff that" and not buy the product - just because you don't like the deal offered doesn't mean you have the right to ignore the terms!

      Deals should be made upfront before money changes hands, with a contract. EULAs shouldn't exist.

      And if you do, I want a Ferrari (I just happen to think the price is unreasonable).

      When you buy a car, the price is discussed before the sale. Also, it doesn't come with a note in the glovebox saying "And BTW, we forbid you from using third party parts".

    13. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, during discovery, Psystar failed to produce any proof that they did purchase the copies of OS X they sold. Not to mention everyone of the about 700 PCs they sold was imaged from an imaging server and thus used a single copy (which was unlawful).

      That doesn't change my argument though. I believe that the essence of what they were trying to do should be legal.

      Now, the imaging server I think was a screwup, and they should have just paid some minimum age kid to install the CD by hand. Though I think that's a technicality anyway, as I fail to see much difference between paying for 700 CDs and installing from each CD, and paying for 700 CDs, and installing from one.

      If they didn't actually pay, their bad.

      Finally, they were found guilty of copyright infrigment because they made a derivative work (changed Apple's copy protection kext, "Dont Steal MacOS X") which they put on this imaging server, thus engaging in unlawful distribution of an unauthorised derivative work.

      If you think about this too much, pretty much every install of Windows is copyright infringement as well. If the shop say, changes the background, that changes something in the registry. That data was created by a MS employee, and MS probably automatically holds copyright on that. So change a Windows setting, sell to customer, copyright infringement.

      So maybe you should get the facts about the case before you judge Psystar as some kind of good guy.

      I don't see them as a good guy. I think the DRM is shameful, and their plan was flawed, but I still think that creating a hackintosh and selling it should be legal.

    14. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The section of the EULA you're complaining about is printed on the outside of the box... The typeface is reasonably large.

      The car analogy is broken (they pretty much always are) and yes, I take full responsibility as I did it first (I was actually making a joke - but clearly I failed).

    15. Re:Good for you by RedK · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your background example is laughable. Microsoft authorises such modifications to OEMs. If an OEM were to remove activation from their product though without it being a VLC, you'd see their lawyers all over it and the OEM would get what is coming. Apple does not authorise people to remove their copy protection kext.

      And if Psystar had to install every copy from a fresh DVD they bought, they wouldn't be in the business in the first place. The costs associated would be prohibitive.

      And seriously, if Psystar wanted to compete with Apple, why didn't they invest in a a few programmers and wrote their own OS from open source components ? The burger stand down the road doesn't compete with McDonald's by selling Big Macs.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    16. Re:Good for you by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think Apple sucks, but aside from that, there's an old saying about a fool and his money. I'm sorry, as the first poster said, those that bought Psystar were retards, pure and simple, and are getting everything they so richly deserve.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Your background example is laughable. Microsoft authorises such modifications to OEMs. If an OEM were to remove activation from their product though without it being a VLC, you'd see their lawyers all over it and the OEM would get what is coming. Apple does not authorise people to remove their copy protection kext.

      I disagree with the entire idea that authorization should be needed for such a thing.

      Ok, then, if not being an OEM I sell my laptop with the contents as they are and the CDs of what's installed on it, I'm commiting copyright infringement because I customized things a bit?

      And if Psystar had to install every copy from a fresh DVD they bought, they wouldn't be in the business in the first place. The costs associated would be prohibitive.

      Why would it? It was 700 computers. Hire somebody out of high school for minimum wage, and get them to walk around a room full of computers, sticking CDs in and clicking at the right times. I'd be surprised if it took more than a week per 700 computers, which would cost less than $1 per box.

      And seriously, if Psystar wanted to compete with Apple, why didn't they invest in a a few programmers and wrote their own OS from open source components ?

      Because that wasn't the point? The entire reason for the existence of the hackintosh is that the OS is fine, but Apple's hardware selection is limited. People wanted OS X, on hardware they liked better.

      The burger stand down the road doesn't compete with McDonald's by selling Big Macs.

      Precisely, the burger stand isn't doing any harm to McDonalds because it's still paying for their product at their retail price. So any claim that they hurt McDonalds' business should be held as laughable.

      Now whether that makes business sense or not is another matter. An analogy for this case would be a business buying Big Macs, then providing a different kind of service to the clients, like home delivery, adding extra condiments McDonalds doesn't offer, or some such thing. I can't imagine why would there be anything illegal or wrong about that.

    18. Re:Good for you by RedK · · Score: 1

      Precisely, the burger stand isn't doing any harm to McDonalds because it's still paying for their product at their retail price. So any claim that they hurt McDonalds' business should be held as laughable.

      Actually, way to misread the quote. Read it again, the burger stand doesn't sell Bigmacs, it sells its own burgers. If it sold bigmacs, it would get sued out of existance, even if it bought all those bigmacs at McDonald's. McDonald's has certain quality standards that are associated with its brand and any unauthorised reseller that isn't subject to the same standards will only tarnish its image.

      As for your customization example, it's the same as your earlier background example. Psystar rewrote parts of the kernel and repackaged the OS X distribution to be distributed. You changing parameters that Apple or Microsoft made modifiable is not creating a derivative work.

      So please go understand the case facts and findings before you post, you're obviously lacking a lot of knowledge about the laws and facts involved.

      I think I remember you from other Psystar threads trolling with the same stuff. Are you being paid ?

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    19. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Actually, way to misread the quote. Read it again, the burger stand doesn't sell Bigmacs, it sells its own burgers. If it sold bigmacs, it would get sued out of existance, even if it bought all those bigmacs at McDonald's. McDonald's has certain quality standards that are associated with its brand and any unauthorised reseller that isn't subject to the same standards will only tarnish its image.

      That's stupid. Acer has quality standards as well, yet I'm perfectly free to buy their laptops and resell them. First sale doctrine. Should work the same for Apple and McDonalds. In fact, I bet the providers McDonalds buys from also have their quality standards. That doesn't stop McDonalds from doing stuff to those products.

      I'm pretty sure that buying the laptops and painting them a different color would be fine too.

      I didn't say anywhere I'd claim to represent the vendor, obviously the company would advertise itself as a reseller of modified hardware.

      As for your customization example, it's the same as your earlier background example. Psystar rewrote parts of the kernel and repackaged the OS X distribution to be distributed. You changing parameters that Apple or Microsoft made modifiable is not creating a derivative work.

      I don't see the difference. Everything in a computer is modifyable. Config files are editable, DLL files are replaceable, physical parts can be exchanged with different ones. The vendor doesn't need to bless anything with modifiability, it all is already.

      So please go understand the case facts and findings before you post, you're obviously lacking a lot of knowledge about the laws and facts involved.

      I'm stating my disagreement with the laws. Law != Good != Moral. When a law is bad it should be thrown out.

      I think I remember you from other Psystar threads trolling with the same stuff. Are you being paid ?

      First thread on this I post in, don't own Apple hardware or software nor want any, don't own anything from Psystar, nor want it either, or have any other kind of relationship. Don't benefit in any way from Psystar or Apple winning or losing either.

      I'm arguing purely out of the principle of what I believe in.

    20. Re:Good for you by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      It seems you needed a lesson in respect of other's hard work. Now you've learned the hard way that it doesn't pay to try and rip off someone.

      How do you feel about region free DVD players?

    21. Re:Good for you by RedK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really ? First thread on Psystar you post in ?

      http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1419357&cid=29882459

      Search wikipedia for a description of derivative work vs changing settings. I'm done arguing with an obvious troll.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    22. Re:Good for you by arminw · · Score: 0

      ....People wanted OS X, on hardware they liked better.....

      The problem is that Apple never sold anything but upgrade copies of OS X. They never sold the operating system to anyone except for those people who had already owned a Mac. Companies do that all the time. If you buy an upgrade version of software, the installer checks to see if there is a previous version of that software already installed. If not, then you cannot install the upgrade, but have to pay for a full version. In Apple's case, the full version happens to be an expensive dongle called a Macintosh. In what way is Apple doing anything most other companies are not doing?

      --
      All theory is gray
    23. Re:Good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop saying that just because someone paid the $29 or $129 charge that gives them the right to run the software on any machine they want. People keep making this argument time and time again. Apple's OS releases are heavily subsidized by when someone buys their hardware. They make very little of their profits in terms of software, the fast majority of their profits come from hardware. The only reason Apple has any incentive whatsoever to write OSX is to sell their own hardware. They don't give a rats ass about trying to make OS X run on and support the thousands of configurations of windows machines out there. Also, if they were to sell standalone copies of the OS, that were no longer being primarily subsidized by hardware purchases, they would likely be several hundred dollars or more, instead of the $129 or $29 upgrade releases they currently ship. As soon as they did that, people would complain about the cost of the OS. Then you look into support costs for people calling into Apple for support on their OS running on their piece of crap $200 e-machine with $12 RAM and can't understand why programs are crashing every few minutes. Quite frankly, its just not worth their time, and never will be.

      You do not have the right to buy an upgrade OS and install it on any system in violation of its licensing agreement. You may believe this, but the courts obviously disagree (so far).

    24. Re:Good for you by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Dilution of Apple's reputation -- i.e. throwing unapproved / unofficial products with a copy of an OS tweaked specifically for the approved / official products could be seen as an attack against Apple.

      Regardless of your viewpoint on this issue, your viewpoint on Apple products, etc, you have to agree that Apple was forced to defend their reputation.

      It would be like someone slapping a Ferrari logo on a Ford because you had swapped the engine with the Ferrari version. It's not made the same, it won't do the same, it's not made to work together the same. Ferrari would be furious, and so is Apple in this situation.

      You don't get to pick and choose which conditions of the software contract you want to follow, it's take it or leave it -- and that same force (contract law) which keeps the contract in effect also protects the GPL / LGPL from those who would subvert it for their own means.

    25. Re:Good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misunderstand the license. You are licensed to use the OS with whatever permissions Apple deigns to grant you. Apple sets the terms, not you, just as Microsoft does, and every other software vendor that sells licensing. You are not licensed to place it on non-Apple hardware. It's just that simple. You haven't bought it. You purchased a license. This is no different than the license you get with any OEM hardware. They typically don't license you to transfer it to another PC, but they typically don't' have a way to prevent that because the OS is not owned by the vendor. They get around this by giving you an 'imaging' CD that will only install on a specific Dell, or HP, or whatnot. In Apple's case, it's a closed system, where they control the OS and the hardware, so naturally, they have more control as to the hardware which the OS can be installed.

      If you bought the software, you could do as you please, but since you license it, you either agree with the terms of the license (which Apple sets, not you), or you buy some other OS.

      I find it odd that even the OSS folks are always so strict when it comes to an OSS license like GPL, but when it comes to a non-OSS license, they simply disregard it as irrelevant.

    26. Re:Good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The section of the EULA you're complaining about is printed on the outside of the box... The typeface is reasonably large.

      The car analogy is broken (they pretty much always are) and yes, I take full responsibility as I did it first (I was actually making a joke - but clearly I failed).

      I'd like a picture of that box. From a website that you can order from, not from your own digital camera.

    27. Re:Good for you by Warhawke · · Score: 1

      It's a dirty tactic. First they refuse the money, then they sue you for not paying them the money they refused to take.

      Good argument! By the way, on a totally unrelated note, I've enslaved your daughter for my own dastardly deeds. Why? Well, she can make me some good money. Yeah, yeah, I know you created her. I'll just pay you this sum of money and we'll call it even, k? Oh, yeah, and thanks for not suing me!

    28. Re:Good for you by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      They paid for the software, and they can use it on whatever hardware they own if it runs

      And if all they did was use it on whatever hardware they own, Apple probably wouldn't have bothered them. I don't recall any reports of Apple going after people who build a Hackintosh for their own use. The problem came when they modified the software and resold it.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    29. Re:Good for you by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I'm sure if you offered Apple $1000 for a legal copy of OS X, they'd probably be willing to do it. The difference is, you think the buyer gets to set the price and if the seller doesn't agree then the buyer gets to steal it.

      Fortunately for the rest of the world, pretty much no one agrees with them or you.

      Its nice that you think others shouldn't be told what they can do with their stuff. I think you shouldn't be able to do anything with your stuff that I don't approve of. I think you should leave your car at my house so I can drive it whenever I want. I also want free roam of your home. I want to be able to use any of your stuff whenever I want actually. How do you feel about that?

      You don't get to tell others what they get to do with their stuff, regardless of how mentally retarded you are.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    30. Re:Good for you by indiechild · · Score: 1, Troll

      He's a great example of the numerous Apple haters who are way more fanatic and cultishly zealous than any "Apple fanbois" I've ever seen.

    31. Re:Good for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a dirty tactic. First they refuse the money, then they sue you for not paying them the money they refused to take.

      You have the right to refuse a prospective customer's sale. There's nothing dirty about it. Just because Psystar offered to pay, doesn't mean Apple is obliged to accept, especially given that what Psystar was selling, was a violation of Apple's terms (OS X on unauthorized hardware). If anything, that Psystar went off and did it anyway, is playing dirty.

      IMO, EULAs in general, and especially the way Apple used theirs in this case should be illegal and void.

      On what basis? You agree to their terms or you don't. OH NOES THEY GIVE ME A CHOICE! You either accept their terms, or walk away. It's really that simple. The whole defense of Psystar argument seems to be little more than "BUT I AM WANT CHEAP MAC LOL".

    32. Re:Good for you by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      It is not a problem with windows because if you are an OEM or a volume license customer you are explicitly allowed to do imaging and image customization (within limits) by the license. Microsoft unlike Apple does not build their own systems they are not stupid and they took care of this little matter. Apple did not because there was no need to grant such permission.

      Microsoft has some pretty scary terms in their agreements but it is possible to comply and still run a business.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    33. Re:Good for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      While I agree there is a scary amount of KIRF (keeping it real fake) iPods out there, does anybody know of any KIRF Sandisks? I hate those damned LIon batteries, as they get too hot and always seem to run out at the worst times. I love my Sandisk M series, but they max out at 4Gb (which is what I've got) and now even Sandisk only makes damned LIon battery players!

      What I want is simple: an 8-32Gb flash based player that just plays music, is solidly built like the Sandisk, and most importantly runs on AAA batteries like the M series so I can get 27+ hours like I do with my M260 and just carry a spare battery in my pocket in case it goes dead. Does anybody know of a player like that? I can't be the only one sick of these 3-6 hour MP3 players the have to be recharged, can I?

      With the AAA Sandisks getting 25+ hours is normal, changing a battery takes less than 3 minutes, and the battery is small enough I can just throw an extra in my pocket and forget about it. Oh and if it goes dead while I'm out walking at 3AM I can walk into any all nighter and be up and running in less than 5 minutes. Am I the only one that actually just wants to listen to music on the go and not worry about a battery? I don't care about the brand, if it takes microSD cards it would be nice, but not required, but the AAA power is a must. Surely there has to be somebody out there making what I'm describing?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    34. Re:Good for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Does that mean you think MSFT shouldn't have been busted for setting terms with the OEMs then? After all it was their product and just because you don't like the deal offered doesn't mean you have the right to ignore the terms! right?

      Arguments like this is why I never have understood the Apple RDF. I mean Apple is just as much a DRM happy, lockin loving, EULA packin, squeeze for every dime they can company, no different than MSFT. The ONLY difference I can tell is Steve Jobs, no matter what you think of the man, does have good taste. But considering that Windows 7 actually looks nice, maybe somebody at MSFT finally developed a little taste too?

      But from their actions I have always considered Apple and MSFT two sides of the same coin. The only real difference is Apple is slicker and better at brand marketing, whereas MSFT has always been about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    35. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Ah, oops. Guess I forgot.

      Anyway, IMO you're making an argument that makes no sense.

      Cheese producer makes cheese. It has quality standards. McDonalds buys this cheese and "modifies" it, creating a Big Mac. This is okay.

      McDonalds makes Big Macs. It has quality standards. Company X buys them, and "modifies" them, creating Product. According to you, this is not okay.

      I do not see absolutely any difference between both cases. I think that it's that in your mind, a Big Mac is an Official Product (TM), which as some magical "end user product" status and special protections, while the cheese doesn't have it. But things don't work like that in the real world, plenty things are both end products and components, such as video cards and mice for instance.

      Also, your argument would means that if I'm at restaurant and offer to pay them $X for somebody to go get a hamburger at the McDonalds around the corner for me, that would somehow be illegal.

    36. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      In Apple's case, the full version happens to be an expensive dongle called a Macintosh. In what way is Apple doing anything most other companies are not doing?

      I'm not arguing about Apple specifically. I'm saying I think that the crux of what Psystar is doing here should be generally legal. This specific discussion is about Apple, but I hold the same opinion regarding any other company that uses the same tactics.

      And that "other companies" do it too, doesn't make it any less wrong in my eyes.

    37. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Okay, then if I buy a laptop, perform some large modifications like for instance removing IE, and sell it on ebay, that would be illegal?

      If it isn't illegal and I start a company that does that, does it become illegal then?

      If there's any illegality involved, then I think there shouldn't be any.

    38. Re:Good for you by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      I still think that creating a hackintosh and selling it should be legal."

      Of course it should be. The bigger picture is that software should be transferable. Who profits when you have software locked to hardware? Everyone but the consumer, that's who.

      Software makers profit because they get to re-sell you their software over and over again when you buy new hardware. Microsoft has been doing this for a long time, and you will have to pull some major teeth - wisdom teeth - if you want to try to get a "normal" computer without Windows on it. Of course the whole "naked PC" push was when a lot of it went down and they tried justifying to the consumers why they were screwing them with pineapples.

      Hardware manufacturers benefit because if their hardware doesn't break over time, the software will appear dated and consumers seeing it all as a "package deal" will help convince they need to fork over money for new hardware if they want the new software. The huge "discount" you get when you buy Windows with new computers is extreme. If these back room deals didn't occur between Microsoft and OEMs, and they instead had to purchase Windows at the price everyone else did, the world of computing would be a much different place.

      In short, if the government either a) stepped in to prevent companies from forcing these tactics down consumer's throats and gave them actual choice, or b) if the government simply denounced or didn't recognize the legality of their behavior so that Hackintoshes were officially legalized, and Microsoft couldn't legally enforce bundling practices, i.e. the government actually gave a crap about anti-competitive tactics in general or got rid of the laws which protect these monopolies (fuck you DMCA), the world would be a much better place.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    39. Re:Good for you by Yfrwlf · · Score: 1

      And yes, I said world, because certain laws protecting monopolies effects the world by holding back true competition and the advancement of technology for the betterment of everyone, even if these laws are only U.S.-based.

      --
      Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
    40. Re:Good for you by RedK · · Score: 1

      Microsoft plays by different rules. The ruling that made them a monopoly and thus subject to anti-trust laws changed the whole game for them. Apple is under no obligation to follow anti-trust rules because it doesn't have a trust. Thus they can do product tying (if the products are related, ie, a computer and an OS) and impose conditions to OEMs and resellers. Not being in a monopoly position, everyone can give them the finger without much consequences to their business.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    41. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      I couldn't have put it better myself.

      The other big difference was Microsoft telling OEMs they had to buy Windows for every computer they sold (no matter if it was supplied with Windows or not) and restricting what non-Microsoft OEM software could be loaded. Hardly paragons of the free market.

    42. Re:Good for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      But it is their product! Shouldn't they have the right to decide how it is sold? Let us, just for a moment, pretend the antitrust case never happened, okay? In that case what makes MSFT and Apple ANY different? Nothing that I can tell, except as I said Apple has better tastes and appeals to the rich, while MSFT sells to the average Joe who can't afford Apple.

      And for all the hate that is spewed here, lets be honest for a moment: if it wasn't for MSFT most folks would NOT have two or three PCs, in fact most wouldn't have one at all. Because they couldn't afford one. Apple has always been expensive, will always be expensive, and couldn't care less about selling to the common man, which is why you have Hackentoshes in the first place. Ever since Woz left folks have been wanting an affordable tower from Apple, and every year Steve ignores them. You'll never see an under $500 tower from them, nor an under $500 laptop or netbook.

      The reason we have cheap PCs that the common man can afford is that MSFT took the OS out of the equation and made the hardware commodity, which allowed anyone to build an x86 compatible that could run the same software that big blue was running on theirs. I remember the "good old days" of commodore and Tandy and every company having their own proprietary OS, and it was a mess. Nothing worked with anything else and everything was high.

      So people here can spew their Twitter style "M$ Suxorz! LOL!" rants all they want, but if apple would have switched places we would have a VERY different world. A world where PCs are much more locked down, much more expensive, and much less common. Because Steve would NEVER let his OS run on commodity hardware. He has always wanted top to bottom control, which is why he killed the clone market. I personally like the fact that I can throw together a quad core for under $700 that will run Windows, BSD, Linux, or pretty much any OS that I want. But I still don't see any difference between the tactics of MSFT and Apple, other than Apple can dazzle you with "teh shiny", which admittedly is..well very shiny. Say what you will, Steve does have taste.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    43. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      But it is their product! Shouldn't they have the right to decide how it is sold?

      Actually, no. In any country there are laws that decide how you can sell a product.

      Let us, just for a moment, pretend the antitrust case never happened, okay? In that case what makes MSFT and Apple ANY different? Nothing that I can tell, except as I said Apple has better tastes and appeals to the rich, while MSFT sells to the average Joe who can't afford Apple.

      On my part, I'm arguing about the general principle of the thing. In your case, I'd be criticising MS in the same way. I'm not making an anti-Apple argument, I'm making an anti-too controlling company argument.

      And for all the hate that is spewed here, lets be honest for a moment: if it wasn't for MSFT most folks would NOT have two or three PCs, in fact most wouldn't have one at all. Because they couldn't afford one

      Bullshit. The argument you're making is that if MSFT didn't exist, everything else would be the same, except for the place MSFT currently takes, leaving a gaping void. But things don't happen like that. If MSFT wasn't there, maybe Apple would be dominant, or IBM, or we'd all be using a modern version of the Amiga. Somebody would eventually see the market for cheap computers and provide them.

      BTW, the modern PC has little to do with Microsoft, it's the consequence of the reverse engineering of an IBM product.

      Now, if Windows wasn't there, that void would have been filled with something else as well. Maybe OS/2, or BeOS, but something, or maybe multiple things would have taken its place.

    44. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      Much of the OEM argument is about how they sought to control how OEMs were restricted from selling competitors products. They told PC makers that if they sold PCs with other operating systems they'd have to pay far higher prices for Windows, this throttled other offerings like BeOS before they had a chance.

      Microsoft aren't the heroes of the PC revolution you think they are, if anyone is it's Compaq - they paid for the IBM BIOS to be reverse engineered, and that allowed the clone market to get started.

      Microsoft have actually helped keep PC prices high - look at the portion of the PCs price that is in it's software - it has raised significantly.

      I cannot know what the world would have been like without Microsoft, their OS has been such an integral part of the industry for so long it's impossible to know, but I do know they stifled competition as soon as they achieved dominance.

      Do I hate Microsoft? Of course not! I don't like a great many things they've done, but they have also got a lot of things right. I have plenty of Microsoft product that I use all the time, both hardware and software - but I also know my history, and know that the regulator would be well advised to keep close tabs on them, they can be very naughty boys.

    45. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what, how about this from Apple's store on the page that sells Mac OS X:

      "Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."

      They have this in bold type right on the page where you add it to the shopping cart - I think it's pretty clear.

    46. Re:Good for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      And how exactly is this different from say Intel who dictates what can and can't be put into netbooks and kept AMD out of the OEM market? If you don't play by Intel's rules you have to pay a higher price, with Apple you'll get sued. I still don't see how either company is any better/worse than MSFT, other than MSFT has all the subtlety of a drunken bull in a china shop.

      And how exactly has MSFT kept PC prices high? The OEMs could install Linux, or BSD, or make their own custom like Moblin, etc. The simple fact is, and this is one that makes Linux guys foam at the mouth BTW, is that the customer WANTS Windows, and is in fact willing to pay more money for it than deal with Linux. How is that anything other than economics 101? The customer wants feature A, is willing to pay for feature A, and so the OEMs give them what they want. To see the market in action just look at how long the OEMs have been able to sell XP! Did MSFT want to keep selling XP after Vista came out? Hell No! Vista made them more money! But the customer spoke and said "We don't like Vista, we want XP!" and the OEMs listened and got MSFT to back down.

      But I still don't see how MSFT "stifled competition" as you put it. Netscape? Shot themselves in the foot by throwing all their code out and by putting out a buggy POS that was NS4. Yes IE sucked balls but sadly it sucked less than NS4. And thanks to there being cheap Windows hardware everywhere I can pick up used machines for a little of nothing and run Windows, Linux, BSD, etc. Back in the days of proprietary land before MSFT and Compaq that just wasn't possible. It was like a tower of Babel with nothing working with anything else. We shall soon see with ARM netbooks if folks will give up Windows for a lower price, I'm betting not so much.

      So I personally am glad for MSFT, even if Steve Ballmer is probably the shittiest CEO ever and keeps shooting themselves in the foot (RRoD, Zune, Vista, placing all the resources on x360 and not supporting Wingaming, Dx10/11 not being backported, etc) because never in history have we been able to get such incredible power for so little money. And thanks to the Internet and commodity hardware anyone can afford to enjoy all this incredible power at or fingertips. It is truly an exciting time to be alive and I can't wait to see what is next.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    47. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      Intel's actions here are clearly anti-trust, and on a par with those of Microsoft.

      My point is that OEMs weren't free to install Linux on a subset of their products - that's the point!

      We cannot know what would have happened without Microsoft, I suspect that we'd have a similar position to he one we have, just different faces. Probably Digital Research.

    48. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      People do sell modified Macs, Apple might not like it but it's allowed. All Apple are saying is Mac OS X can only be installed on a Mac, let's not lose sight of that. They don't have a monopoly, so there is no anti-trust, product tying is perfectly legal and acceptable. You don't **need** to run Mac OS X, there are alternatives in the market. If you want it, then you buy the machine that is allowed to run it, if that's not acceptable, then you buy an alternative (or legally obtain an alternative).

      You can't compare Apple to Microsoft - Microsoft have a monopoly, often there is NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. The two aren't comparable.

    49. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      You might feel differently if you had created the product! What you're doing (though I don't think you mean to) is stopping someone from being able to make money from their own work. Now you're probably going to hit back with "others can", but is that really true? Microsoft distort the whole market (and as far as you're concerned are as guilty) by their shear size. The market of operating systems is far from a level playing field.

      EULAs are agreed to by buyers, under no duress, why is this wrong or immoral? You don't like them, fine don't agree with one then, nobody is forcing you. The fact is a lot of people view them as acceptable. Would the transaction be better without an EULA? Yes, lower prices would be nice too, but I accept that the ability of the vender to make a profit would be adversely impacted without the EULA, as I want to be able to do further business with the vender, then their solvency is worth something to me, hence I'll accept Apple's EULA. You can choose a different path.

    50. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      If you're not an OEM you don't need to comply with the OEM license so sure, if you want to build a business buying laptops through retail and selling them secondhand on eBay with modifications to Windows there is nothing stopping you.

      Good luck with that.

      Seriously, if you're an OEM there are restrictions on what you can and can't do. You think this unfair?

      Now forget the "I'm and OEM" nonsense and look at it from a customer's perspective again. You buy a laptop with Windows on it, and someone has modified Windows such that something you wanted to do with it doesn't work - happy? These legal bindings can protect customers as well.

    51. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      You might feel differently if you had created the product! What you're doing (though I don't think you mean to) is stopping someone from being able to make money from their own work

      There is no right to profit. That something would make somebody lose money doesn't automatically make it wrong, and that something makes money doesn't make it automatically right.

      EULAs are agreed to by buyers, under no duress, why is this wrong or immoral?

      No, there is plenty duress involved.

      By the time you get to read an EULA, you've already bought something, went home, and opened the box. You can try to take it back, but most shops won't accept the returns of opened software, as you could have copied it. And since the vast majority of people consider the EULA to be a kind of standard boilerplate nobody reads or cares about, that if you tried to return a program because you disagreed with the EULA, the store clerk probably wouldn't even understand what you're talking about.

      Additionally, EULAs appear on software that comes with hardware you bought. Yeah, a few people managed to return Windows and keep the hardware, but it's an annoying process that doesn't work everywhere.

      For EULAs to be at least slightly acceptable, the ability to return the software must be guaranteed everywhere, without arguing for an hour, and it isn't.

    52. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Ok, then if I were to buy hardware and OS X retail, install it on the hardware, and sell that, why should anybody be able to stop me?

    53. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      The section you're complaining about is ON THE BOX. The rest of the EULA is common practice, and well understood by buyers. It's long, but nothing is surprising. The EULA is available before purchase, and this is printed on the box (true you have to obtain the EULA but it details how to do that before purchase).

      Honestly I can't believe you're trying to present this as Apple attempting to sell Mac OS X and hiding the fact you need a Mac to run it - nothing could be further from the truth!

    54. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      Yes, you've breached the license - you're not allowed to install Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. You buy an Apple computer, modify it and sell that with Mac OS X installed then you're golden.

      People actually do that, you can buy a "Mac tablet" that's a modified MacBook, all perfectly legal.

    55. Re:Good for you by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Then I think it shouldn't be possible for that license to legally exist. It should be possible to legally install anything you buy on a toaster, if you can manage it. Unsupported of course.

    56. Re:Good for you by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Wanna guess what the requirements are for getting discount OEM licenses? NO dualboot, and I bet - unofficially - no other OSes. I'm not sure how Dell got away with Ubuntu, but customers don't know what an OS is, they want their PC to run. OEMs can make that work with any OS.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    57. Re:Good for you by Jezza · · Score: 1

      We've got Linux for that ;-)

    58. Re:Good for you by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      If Jezza's information from Apple's own site is not enough, how about this from amazon:

      Main Specifications
      Product Description: Mac OS X Snow Leopard - ( v. 10.6 ) - version upgrade package
      Operating System: Apple MacOS X 10.6
      Version: 10.6
      License Type: Version upgrade package
      License Qty: 1 user
      License Pricing: Standard
      Upgrade from: Apple MacOS X v. 10.5
      Media: DVD-ROM
      Package Type: Retail

      In nice big, clear letters, before you add it to the shopping cart. It does also say it on the box too - I have one on my desk right here. Says quite clearly "Requirements: Mac computer with an Intel processor [other info] see www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html. Don't steal software." Very definitely on the outside of the box, legible clearly before you open it or break any seals.

    59. Re:Good for you by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      The outside of the box features the bit you are complaining about. It is easy to read (although printed small because the box is very thin) even if it is in pale grey text. Might have been better if it was printed in black.

      You don't have to break any seals to read it. The same information is also printed on the outside of box on new Mac computers too.

    60. Re:Good for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but as someone that sells Pcs I can say that is bullshit. Linux is fine if you have IT experience, or are running a server, but a clueless home user? BWA HA HA HA HA! Not a chance in hell! You give them a Linux box, you know what happens? They go to Walmart to try to buy a printer or webcam, which I have found only 35% or so of the cheapo Chinese junk in Wally World works in Linux, so they are more likely than not to get a paperweight. So they get a brick, along with some cheap Windows software, which of course don't work, then they bring it to YOU to "fix it" which of course you can't. So you either burn the customer and screw your rep, or you give them their money back and eat the loss between what it cost new and what you can sell it for used.

      So sorry, been there, tried that, got the T-shirt. The software problem I could fix by showing them how easy it was to use Synaptic, but until Linux fixes paperweight roulette, either by having Apple style "Linux stores" or by working with manufacturers to put penguins on boxes and drivers on CDs, Linux will be a losing proposition in retail. That is why Walmart quit selling Linux, and nobody in the USA currently sells preloaded Linux boxes. It is just too expensive to deal with returns and after sale support. Sorry.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    61. Re:Good for you by Brewmeister_Z · · Score: 1

      Only one other case I would use Linux. I had a customer that had an old Windows ME PC that had issues. I put Ubuntu Linux on it with the understanding that this computer will be OK for games and using the Firefox browser. Considering Win ME only has IE6, the web experience will improve as long as they don't expect much for Flash-type content. I was upfront about the limitations based on the old hardware and compatibility issues with add-on devices like printers and cameras.

      In the end, this is just an experiment to see what average Joes would think of Linux as a desktop. The biggest problem they have had so far is with the NVIDIA video driver and the resolution getting reset to Auto (a very low res) and having to manually setting it back to something usable like 1024x768.

      Also, in this case, they have a newer PC with Win XP that the wife uses mostly and the old one was the husband's but she doesn't want him messing up hers. He mostly just plays games and goes to websites for NASCAR and local racetracks so it can handle that fine.

      --
      I Cater to the Needs of Stupid People. - from a coffee mug Christmas gift
    62. Re:Good for you by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      So in other words, it is basically an Internet Kiosk? See for that kind of case, where nothing will ever be installed, no hardware will be added, and nothing messed with, well Linux is just hunky dory. But that is a VERY niche case from what I have found building, selling, and repairing PCs.

      The much more likely case is someone who has a single PC, uses that thing for everything, has a seriously funky mix of hardware brands, and all kinds of gadgets they want to hook to it like their cell, multifunction printer, webcam, etc. And for THOSE cases Linux is a nightmare from hell!

      I think the problem is Linux guys have the wrong mindset. They think they can replace Windows, when a more apt comparison would be Mac. Just like a Mac I have found there will be many devices that will have to be shitcanned if you want to switch a home user from Windows to linux. Sure Linux supports the really old crap nobody is selling anymore, but I have found the cheapo Chinese junk that folks pick up at Walmart has maybe 35% support if that. So their multifunction printer (winprinter), wireless, webcam, a lot of that shit has to go, which makes for a seriously PO'ed customer. And good luck getting those damned cell phones to work!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  7. Please tell me you're kidding... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ok, you knew perfectly well where this was headed. You knew they lost the case against Apple. You should write off your "purchase" as a donation.

  8. Why is this News??? #editorfail by deadmongrel · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know it's a slow news day but why is this news? The fact that the company that created the software lost a major court case and the company filed for bankruptcy wasn't enough indication that things are not as peachy as the company claimed?
    #editorfail

  9. You're a bloody moron. by DurendalMac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1. This is why you don't buy anything (if you want support) from a company that is getting sued out of existence.
    2. This is why you don't buy anything that you can just do for free. It really isn't difficult to make a Hackintosh these days. You bought something that only simplified the process marginally, if even that.
    3. This is why you don't be really, really stupid about buying things.

    1. Re:You're a bloody moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Steve, calm down and take your meds, you don't want the next /. story to be about your head exploding. Again.

  10. Re:Lol macfags by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Obviously you've never really owned one. Or you are a verrrry slow learner.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  11. The irony is thick enough to choke you by argent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The whole idea that Psystar was using strong DRM to protect their code to strip the honor-system-level protections from OS X installs was mind-meltingly ironic in the first place. The fact that they're so quickly demonstrating why buying anything protected by strong DRM is a bad idea just adds salt to the dish.

    1. Re:The irony is thick enough to choke you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will someone please release a crack for Psystar's activation? Preferably, add DRM to your crack, so that we can use DRM to crack DRM that cracks our DRM.

    2. Re:The irony is thick enough to choke you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real hackers would probably just point you to the free solutions available that might take a bit more work, but that any dummy can do (it consists of mostly copying & pasting stuff into a bash shell). E.g. google "Lifehacker snow leopard hackintosh" to find a how-to.

    3. Re:The irony is thick enough to choke you by argent · · Score: 1

      You fail irony forever.

    4. Re:The irony is thick enough to choke you by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      That is what i was thinking too from the story, why on earth does it have to activate in the first place? I can accept having to make a backup of the drivers and feeling stupid when the company went bust, but having to activate my "hardware" online is just as bad as everyone else out there and they wouldn't get my dime.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  12. Really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is what you get for giving money to Psystar. Anyone could have told you it's a bad idea.

  13. Great idea but shouldn't have bought from them by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I like what Psystar was doing but it was always a bad idea to buy from them.

    Apple is pretty controlling, in my opinion, there's no way you can believe that they would have let Psystar do anything with Apple's software that they don't like.

    Consider it a lesson learned and search for hackintosh and learn how to sort out Mac OS on the PC yourself or take the loss and buy a proper Mac or put Linux/Windows on the machine you have.

    1. Re:Great idea but shouldn't have bought from them by dingen · · Score: 1

      I like what Psystar was doing but it was always a bad idea to buy from them.

      If you really felt Psystar was doing the right thing, you would have bought from them. It's called voting with your wallet.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    2. Re:Great idea but shouldn't have bought from them by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      You can vote with your wallet but when they're technically breaking a larger company's terms then you know full well who the courts will side with and they're you're left either with a normal PC with Linux/Windows or putting OSX on yourself.

      While I agree with what they were doing I don't care enough about OSX to go through that.

    3. Re:Great idea but shouldn't have bought from them by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Same thing here - there's a difference between agreeing with Psystar's position and believing they'll be able to pull it off. I personally don't see an issue with what Psystar was doing, and believe that Apple's (and any other shrinkwrap) EULA is a bunch of crap. However, I also know Congress and the courts have totally screwed up the original intent of copyright in the United States, and I have no faith that the courts would issue a ruling that would be in keeping with that original intent in the Psystar case. Right or wrong, Psystar was doomed from the beginning.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:Great idea but shouldn't have bought from them by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Apple is pretty controlling, in my opinion,

      So don't use Apple products then.

      People seem to want to have their cake and eat it: they disapprove of Apple but seem to think they have some god-given right to use their products.

      If you believe that "information should be free" go install Debian.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  14. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy has to be trolling.

  15. sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    grounds for a class action. see how far it gets ya

  16. Sucker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  17. Activation = rentware that can expire at any time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I've switched to Linux. It has nothing to do with getting everything for free (I've paid for Windows). It also has nothing to do with me modifying code. I'm just sick of the capitalistic malware infestation that is product activation.

  18. Switch to EmpireEFI by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    RebelEFI was just copyright infringing code. They pissed off Apple and they also pissed off the development community behind EmpireEFI. This can't end well for them. It would seem that Psystar is just a scheister organization.

  19. Snow Lep. runs nicely on a Dell Mini netbook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spend a couple hundred bucks on a Dell netbook and move your snow lep. over....?
    A Friends machine works great...except for a few bugs in the multitouch area..

  20. Wiki has the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'On December 15, 2009, the judge in the California action issued a permanent injunction barring Psystar from manufacturing, distributing, or assisting anyone with any sort of device or technology "that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure".' (emphasis mine)

    In other words, you're screwed...

  21. No surprise here .. from Psystar's front page: by martinbogo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    December 22, 2009

    Psystar has voluntarily suspended the sale of our Rebel EFI software product. Psystar feels it would be prudent to halt the sale of Rebel EFI while we explicitly ask the court for clarification on the legality of Rebel EFI. Our patience has been tested but our resolve is unwavering. Psystar's vision of bringing the Mac OS to generic PC hardware is and always will be unyielding. Although Rebel EFI may be temporarily unavailable for purchase on the Psystar online store, those who purchase a t-shirt or donate over twenty dollars will receive one free copy of Rebel EFI once the court has ruled in our favor on this issue. ... (more moaning and groaning) ...

    Any and all information regarding Rebel EFI, future software products and all other things Psystar should be directed to press@psystar.com or legal@psystar.com.

    --
    "Don't worry about the problems you have in mathematics, I assure you mine are much greater." - Einstein c.1919
    1. Re:No surprise here .. from Psystar's front page: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      And when the court reiterates that Psystar is wrong, and that Rebel EFI can never again be distributed under any circumstances, what is Psystar going to give all those folks who donated money under the promise of a free copy of Rebel EFI? The judge was brutally clear in his decision, see Groklaw for all the gory details, that Psystar must stop ALL activities that infringe on Apple's products. If they don't, they can be charged with contempt. That kind of judgement doesn't lend itself to successful appeals.

    2. Re:No surprise here .. from Psystar's front page: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I hacked into psystars mail server and found this snippet from there alias file:

      press@psystar.com /dev/null
      legal@psystar.com /dev/null

    3. Re:No surprise here .. from Psystar's front page: by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      That's why they're not selling the software for $20. They're giving it away free, if they can, with purchase of an overpriced T-Shirt. If they lose, you have an overpriced slightly modified "I'm with stupid." shirt.

    4. Re:No surprise here .. from Psystar's front page: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, according to the court's order Psystar is prohibited from 'copying, selling, offering to sell, DISTRIBUTING or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple'. even giving it away for free violates that order and would expose them to a contempt charge. And the T-shirt is DEFINITELY overpriced

    5. Re:No surprise here .. from Psystar's front page: by Swift2001 · · Score: 1

      Which means, the judge handed them their asses on the basic complaint, and left a slight opening (you can appeal) about the EFI stuff. So, when there's all kinds of code floating around that does the same thing, why the hell would anyone want to use this?

  22. Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boo hoo, you got what you payed for. Now stop complaining.

  23. Calls for truth in advertising ring in the hallway by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would you like Psystar to find the money to continue by a) looking under rocks along the highway b) selling plasma with the bums downtown c) rooting around in their asses until something is found?

    Or maybe you think the promises of people who predicated a business on breaking the law* are actually worth something? That's almost endearing.

    (*save your spiel about the laws being unjust. They were fairly well understood and the court upheld them, so reality wins over idealism here.)

  24. This seems to be the result of the last judgement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091215225827172 - see paragraph 4. "...It has until December 31st to comply, but if it can comply in one hour, then that is what the judge expects to see. Also Psystar must destroy everything it has used to circumvent Apple's products..."

    The "destroy everything" by December 31 order would pretty much explain the outage.

  25. newsflash by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

    This just in: Software that requires contacting a remote server doesn't work when the remote server suffers a total existance failure.
    Up next: People die when they're killed.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:newsflash by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Bad news: What operating system or BIOS doesn't? You even have to register your Linux distro.

    2. Re:newsflash by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

      You even have to register your Linux distro.

      Yeah, or what? They'll sue me for pirating Linux? Make me pay triple damages? What's three times nothing?

    3. Re:newsflash by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's three times nothing?

      About 4.5 billion dollars -- but only if you are the RIAA.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:newsflash by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      If only they would stay dead.

    5. Re:newsflash by rdnetto · · Score: 3, Funny

      Up next: People die when they're killed.

      Too late, someone got in ahead of you.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    6. Re:newsflash by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, you've just got a phone call from a Mr. McBride from some Santa Cruz Organization... I think you want to take it.

      Furthermore... if you fail to register your Linux and/or BIOS... your computer will start emitting a distress signal (even though that's something only ships at sea should do) and then things will get really weird. It gets even weirder after you do that.Did you not watch TechTV's TechLive?

    7. Re:newsflash by Jeremy+Visser · · Score: 1

      You even have to register your Linux distro.

      What the crap are you talking about? I don't have to register my Linux distro.

      I can install my Ubuntu system completely offline without any registration, and it can stay that way, thankyou very much. Unless you somehow didn't get this joke a few years back.

    8. Re:newsflash by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Turns out that SCO eventually let McBride go. Something about "losing millions of dollars," "pump and dump," and "lawsuits we can't win."

      Well, OK, they never said those things, but I thought it was pretty obvious that's why they let him go.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    9. Re:newsflash by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Bad news: What operating system or BIOS doesn't? You even have to register your Linux distro.

      I have over a dozen Debian servers that beg to differ.

  26. Should really pay attention to the news... by Skellbasher · · Score: 1

    Apple was well into their lawsuits against Pystar in October. Why would you purchase a product that from a company that was getting them sued, especially when most reporting at the time was that Pystar was probably going to lose?

    1. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should we purchase anything from any company then? After all, they won't be around forever. It seems like I'm the only person who has a problem with this new trend of the customer's product becoming a doorstop when it's vendor closes up shop.

    2. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      No one forces you to make any purchases. What happened to caveat emptor? Are you really so incapable you need your hand held through every transaction? Your point particularly fails in this case because the writing was pretty well on the wall for a long damn time.

    3. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "It seems like I'm the only person who has a problem with this new trend of the customer's product becoming a doorstop when it's vendor closes up shop."

      Support products that don't have an inherent tendency to become "doorstops". Free, Open, user serviceable, etc are what to look for.

      Don't buy things that need vendor support or prolonged vendor support that don't also have non-vendor alternatives for support. Research your choices or be an example to others.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by Jezza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Err, who really wants their computer to last forever? (Hell I won't last FOREVER) What's really wanted is a reasonable life expectancy, AND the ability to take my junk off the computer and onto my next computer (where it must make some sense).

      Mac OS X does that (even if my next computer isn't a Mac). Now you could argue that Linux does that (and I'll concede the point). What you probably don't do is buy from a company that is sure to get sued into oblivion (that's just not smart).

      Since when did the creator of something have no right to say how their product can be used?! Microsoft sell academic versions of some of their stuff... How is this different? All Apple have done is say: Macs come with Mac OS X, and Mac OS X can only (legally) be used on Macs. Apple don't sell Mac OS X on it's own (they sell upgrades... but that's a different thing). Microsoft sell OEM versions of Windows - is that different?! Even the GPL (maybe I should say "Especially the GPL"?) makes stipulations as to what you can and can't do - ignore those at your peril! If I create something, I should be allowed any license I feel appropriate. I don't see how Windows users or Linux users can argue (I should know - I use all three). I wouldn't want to be told that Linux couldn't enforce the GPL, or that Microsoft couldn't distribute with a PC (no OEM pricing).

    5. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did the creator of something have no right to say how their product can be used?

      the moment they gave it to you on the pretense of a SALE.

    6. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by Jezza · · Score: 1

      So a "sale" can have no strings attached? Really?!

      Consider:

      Only to be operated by trained operators

      Must not be used to make an explosive device

      Not to be administered to humans

      Or even: for non-commercial purposes only

    7. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, who really wants their computer to last forever? (Hell I won't last FOREVER) What's really wanted is a reasonable life expectancy, AND the ability to take my junk off the computer and onto my next computer (where it must make some sense).

      Mac OS X does that (even if my next computer isn't a Mac). Now you could argue that Linux does that (and I'll concede the point).

      Uh... Windows?

      A lot more self supportive than OS X, that's for sure.

    8. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      the moment they gave it to you on the pretense of a SALE.

      You think? Go read the copyright notice inside any book, CD or DVD you have "bought" someday. If you have a Windows PC, go read the license that came with that: far more restrictive than anything Apple have dreamed up.

      Go buy a new "restore disc" from Dell or Sony and see if you're entitled to install that on anything other than a specific Dell or Sony PC.

      Then explain why Apple are so special that they alone should not be entitled to use copyright to restrict the use of their software, when almost every other commercial software house does something comparable.

      ...and ultimately, if you don't approve of Apple, don't use their products.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    9. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by Jezza · · Score: 1

      I'm not actually so sure, there is a bit of history of stuff getting dropped with no easy upgrade path...

      But yes, as a general principal I guess I should have included it - didn't mean to scare all those Windows users ;-)

    10. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Unless you sign a contract at the time of purchase, all those are only effectively warnings and disclaimers.

      The "Must not be used to make an explosive device" is probably a reminder that there exists a law that forbids making explosives from fertilizer, or something of that kind.

      You can write whatever you want on a label stuck to something you sell, that doesn't make it have legal force however.

    11. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by Jezza · · Score: 1

      I think this court case proves otherwise. And really, you want me to have to sign a contract when I buy software?!

      As a Linux supporter I think your idea is dangerous in the extreme, how could the GPL work (in any practical way)?!!

    12. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      The GPL isn't affected by this because it's not an EULA.

      The GPL doesn't say anything about how you can use the software. Want to change strings in the Linux kernel? Go ahead. Want to reverse engineer the binary? No problem. You can completely ignore the GPL and still use any GPL licensed program. You're not required to accept it in order to use the program (in this respect, showing the GPL as an EULA in an installer isn't really correct).

      Now, copyright doesn't allow you to redistribute, so if you want to, you need permission. And the GPL gives you that, if you comply with the requirements. The GPL gives you an offer (you can redistribute, provided you comply with X), and you can accept it by complying with the requirements. That's a contract, not an EULA.

      EULAs are different because they attempt to impose terms post-purchase.

    13. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by Jezza · · Score: 1

      Err, the GPL does impose terms. Try putting GPL code into a device then selling it, not allowing anyone access to the code (no, don't - the FSF will come after you, and rightly so).

      You're trying to make the GPL an exception - it isn't.

      If Apple cannot enforce the EULA then Mac OS X cannot exist at its current price point. What Psystar tried to do was never going to work, win or lose the case.

      We've seen lose - I won't go over it.

      If they'd won then Apple's business model would have been sunk, and they'd have no alternative but to drop the Mac and raise the price of Mac OS X - a lot. It's questionable if Mac OS X could have survived (I'd suggest it probably wouldn't have). Whatever Psystar's business would have been destroyed.

      Psystar was always a "lose-lose" proposition.

      The only silver lining for Apple would have been Microsoft would have been exactly the same situation, but far less affected as they get much of their profit from Office.

    14. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Err, the GPL does impose terms. Try putting GPL code into a device then selling it, not allowing anyone access to the code (no, don't - the FSF will come after you, and rightly so).

      The GPL doesn't impose anything, it offers to allow to distribute if you comply with some requirements. Read the GPL. You're not required to agree to it. You can not agree with it, and still use the software. In case you don't believe me, I'll quote it:

      5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
      signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
      distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
      prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
      modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
      Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
      all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
      the Program or works based on it.

      Nothing besides the GPL allows you to redistribute the software. Without the GPL, you're limited to what copyright allows you. You got your copy, you can mess with it all you want, but that's it. It works the same was with for instance, a book. You own it, you can paint on it, use it as toilet paper, rebind it and so on. You don't get an EULA authorizing you to do such things, because you don't need permission. Copyright doesn't allow you to make copies though.

      The "Try putting GPL code into a device then selling it" part is because you're distributing at that point. You're perfectly free to take some hardware, install Linux on it, modify it, and not give the source to anybody else. So long you don't distribute what you created.

      You're trying to make the GPL an exception - it isn't.

      It is. Look at any EULA. They always present themselves as mandatory, restrict usage, and place more restrictions than would exist under plain copyright. In contrast, the GPL is optional to agree to, doesn't restrict usage, and if you agree to the terms lifts restrictions.

      If they'd won then Apple's business model would have been sunk, and they'd have no alternative but to drop the Mac and raise the price of Mac OS X - a lot. It's questionable if Mac OS X could have survived (I'd suggest it probably wouldn't have). Whatever Psystar's business would have been destroyed.

      Apple's business model being sunk would have been an entirely acceptable outcome for me. I'm arguing what I think that should be the rightful state of things. If Apple couldn't do business in such an environment, then I believe it shouldn't be able to.

      My argument is that what Psystar wanted to do should be legally doable. This is completely independent from Apple, Psystar, or OS X, in fact I don't even have an interest in any of that stuff. I don't own Apple products, nor want any, for any price or for free.

    15. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by Jezza · · Score: 1

      But it's right in the section you are quoting!!

      5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
      signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
      distribute
      the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
      prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
      modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
      Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
      all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
      the Program or works based on it.

      You cannot modify the code without accepting the license! They let you run the software, but that's it! I'll agree it's pretty permissive, and I'll argue that the restrictions actually add value, but there is very little "clear air" between the two situations.

      Further more the GPL is infectious, if I add a small amount of GPL code to a project then the whole thing becomes GPL. You're trying to draw a distinction between two sets of people: developers and users, why should this exist? They all use the software, the EULA isn't different, just more restrictive.

      You don't like Apple's EULA, fine, don't run the software - but that doesn't make the idea of a EULA less valid. What if I wanted to write code and specify that I didn't want it to be used for military use, should I not be allowed to do that?!

      You have the choice to ignore Apple and its products, that's fine, I can see that. I'd be worried if you didn't (I want alternatives to the Mac, just as I want alternatives to Windows). But I think on balance Apple make the industry richer, add to the ecosystem, as do Microsoft. I don't think ending their business models are in the interests of consumers. I do think Microsoft have too much power to be allowed to do whatever they want (and they've show that many times) but I don't think that of Apple. I also don't think Linux needs much help - it looks pretty self sustaining at this point. So in general I think EULAs are "OK", I've published code with them, and didn't feel any problem about that, you have the choice to not use the stuff if you find the terms unreasonable. This isn't the same as anti-trust, there are alternatives (sadly I've never created anything as successful as Windows).

    16. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      You cannot modify the code without accepting the license! They let you run the software, but that's it! I'll agree it's pretty permissive, and I'll argue that the restrictions actually add value, but there is very little "clear air" between the two situations.

      But that's not a restriction imposed by the GPL, it's imposed by copyright law.

      Further more the GPL is infectious, if I add a small amount of GPL code to a project then the whole thing becomes GPL

      No, it doesn't.

      If you distribute GPL software in breach of the GPL, all that the GPL grants you is automatically revoked. You're left with copyright law. At that point, you're distributing somebody else's copyrighted work without permission, and it doesn't have any license that allows you to, so you're committing copyright infringement.

      It's up to the copyright holder to decide what to do about that. Removing the GPLd code should fix the problem, as is stopping to infringe. They could also offer to give you a different license for a price, say they can't be bothered to prosecute so feel free to keep using it, or reach some other agreement. They can also just go and sue you for statuory damages. What will happen will depend on what the copyright holder decides to do, and "release it all under the GPL" isn't necessarily the only thing that can happen.

      You're trying to draw a distinction between two sets of people: developers and users, why should this exist? They all use the software, the EULA isn't different, just more restrictive.

      There's no distinction between developers and users, there's a distinction between people who distribute and people who don't. You're just as required to comply with the GPL if you simply redistribute the software.

      You don't like Apple's EULA, fine, don't run the software - but that doesn't make the idea of a EULA less valid. What if I wanted to write code and specify that I didn't want it to be used for military use, should I not be allowed to do that?!

      I don't like EULAs in general. Imposing conditions after something has been bought and paid for, and ownership has been transferred shouldn't be legal.

      Note that again, the GPL doesn't impose anything: it grants things you wouldn't otherwise have, and you can ignore it if you like.

    17. Re:Should really pay attention to the news... by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So I can ignore the GPL if I like? I can take GPLed code, change it, use it in my device or product and then sell that product?

      Then when people ask for the source code, or my changes to this code I am now using commercially I can tell then to get stuffed?

      You can argue that it *shouldn't* be legal for conditions to be imposed after purchase (although they're really not - you can read a full copy of the terms and conditions for OS X on Apple's website before purchase if you so choose [here is is btw: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf%5D), but that doesn't make it so. I don't think it should be illegal for under 18s to buy alcohol, but the law says otherwise. As the law stands currently, they are on Apple's side here.

  27. Re:Why is this News??? #editorfail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up! When did /. become foo's support forum?

  28. Re:Why is this News??? #editorfail by Kjella · · Score: 1

    Yep. So, what are you going to do? Sue them? Get in line and there won't be anything left for you anyway. Usually I feel sorry for customers abandoned by a bankrupcy but in the case of Psystar I'd say this is more #suckerfail than anything. Anyone with the sligbtest clue about IP law would know that Psystar, right or wrong, would be slapped to hell over this. And probably being in the wrong, too.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  29. Interest and Property by Mista2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Psystar had no respect for Apples intellectual property, why do you think they had hany interest in supporting you? After they were killed by the courts, who did you think would keep their systems operating? The magic IT fairies?
    Psystar were just ripping off other open EFI emulators anyway. Search around, there are plenty of legit free ones, not stolen copies like Psystar were shipping.

  30. Psystar's crusade was to make money! by edelbrp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Silly monkey, did you actually think Psystar was fighting Apple on some idealogical grounds other than justifying making money by ripping Apple off? The irony is thick. Psystar's infrastructure, which was to protect their profits, takes you down with them on the ship when things go south. Nice.

    But, who knows, maybe somebody will start a company reverse engineering Psystar's DRM so for a small fee you can get your computer working again? ;')

    1. Re:Psystar's crusade was to make money! by v1 · · Score: 1

      But, who knows, maybe somebody will start a company reverse engineering Psystar's DRM so for a small fee you can get your computer working again

      I think I'm going to make up a new phrase for that: recursive irony

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  31. Re:Never pay money to join a crusade by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    I learned that after paying money to 321 Studios for their DVD X Copy software (via Best Buy). Registered but didn't get around to using it before they lost in court, and since it required activation and the server was gone, I never got to use it.

    Not that I needed to. There's very nice free software out there for that purpose that will continue to function long after their development ceases. I was just contributing monetarily to their fight.

    But then they sold their e-mail list to spammers....

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  32. Re:Why is this News??? #editorfail by darrenkopp · · Score: 5, Funny

    thanks for the hashtag #slashdotisnottwitter

  33. Did you honestly expect anything else? by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did you honestly expect Psystar would honor the 'promise' they made to you when the steal, and re-sell the hard work of the hackintosh community in order to allow you to steal the intellectual property of Apple? The entire company was based on stealing the property of others hard work. Now, what I would have liked to have seen, is Psystar would have worked to improve Linux using some good ideas from OSX. Lets face it, Linux is not perfect, it has sever shortcomings, thats why people pay money for OSX. OSX does several things right, like application deployment (everything packed in a single directory), why not incorporate some of these ideas into Linux? Well, that would require hard work, instead of stealing from others.

  34. Re:first post by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Also, seriously? What kind of retard would send those ass clowns money?"

    That should be modded Insightful, not Flamebait.

    Some things are so monumentally stupid the only appropriate response is scorn and contempt.

    Also relevant:
    Slashdot doesn't feature ways to crack Windows activation, but it does feature workarounds to Apple restrictions. Why?

    Those not wanting to be a corporate bitch should not buy corporate software, water is wet, and the sun rose in the East.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  35. Why did anyone support Pystar in the first place? by Theovon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Pystar first brought a machine on the market, it became quickly clear that their hardware was junk and they didn't know what they were doing. IIRC, one early reviewer bought a machine and found that it was unstable because they had OVERCLOCKED IT.

    Having experimented (and failed) with overclocking myself, spending lots of time reading and dicussing on forums issues like Vdroop, Vgtl, Vdd, multiplier ratios, etc., etc., I can tell you that running a processor out of spec is challenging because you don't know where in that processor's performance bin you are, and your results are almost guaranteed to be different from someone else's, and Intel Quad cores are notoriously hard to overclock, and well it boils down to more of an art form of experimentation and testing than science because you can't get Intel to tell you the actual characteristics of the chip you bought. And moreover, you can run all the artificial tests you want and still end up with an unreliable system because memtest86 and prime95 don't test all the corner cases and enough combinations of scenarios. (I had run memory and processor tests for a week straight, and everything seemed fine, yet I would get kernel panics while parallel compiling Gentoo packages. I could just never manage to figure out the right combination of Vdd and Vgtl, and I could never for sure rule out the memory system being the source of the errors. So I just decided that I'd rather have a reliable system and longer life than 20% more throughput.)

    It's irresponsible for vendors to sell you an overclocked system, because they can't guarantee that it's reliable. Rather, they are fooling you into thinking you're getting a better system than you are, ripping you off in the process. This is just one example of the many incompetent and/or highly questionable things that Pystar was doing that made me want to stay as far away from them as possible.

    It would be one thing if this company tried to produce BETTER hardware than Apple. Trouble is, that would require intelligence and discerment, and people with that kind of smarts would also have been smart enough not to screw with Apple directly.

    If I wanted to sell knock-off Apple hardware here's how I might go about it:

    - Find a way to become an Apple reseller with minimal contractual obligations. This way, you can sell MacOS X discs without raising any major suspicions.
    - Sell and support genuine Apple hardware.
    - Also sell and support high quality Linux and Windows white-box PCs that just happen to have peripherals compatible with MacOS X.
    - Add development support to an open source EFI project
    - Let word of mouth get around that your systems are good for running MacOS
    - But publically state that you do not provide OS support in this configuration because it may violate Apple's EULA.
    - Get your lawyers to make sure you have plausible deniability every way you turn.

    All of this requires forethought (or hindsight in my case). Pystar clearly did not have this. (I might not either. I might have just suggested a really bad plan.)

    But like I say, the main thing that bothered me about them is that their hardware was crap. It's one thing to ride on Apple's shoulders. Directly supporting OSX but on GOOD hardware is arguably questionable, from a legal standpoint. It's entirely another matter to do incompetent things that could make them look bad. That'll REALLY get them chasing after you.

    I've never really understood the whole hacking culture in the first place. People don't want to buy iPhones because they're not hackable enough. Ok, I support Free Software, so I can totally get on board with avoiding something that's proprietary and has DRM and all that. But even if the iPhone were 100% open source, it still would not interest me to hack it. I'm a professional chip designer. I like designing NEW hardware. I like being given an engineering challenge that requires that I create new functionality to serve a market need. I have no desire to confine myself to the spe

  36. Hardly by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    I'll take the ability to right click any file and say "send to F:" instead of running everything through shitty itunes.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Hardly by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Drive letters? EWWW.

    2. Re:Hardly by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      I dunno about XP (I'm not running it any more), but Windows 7 lists the drive name first.

      So... Send To -> Music Device Name (F:)

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    3. Re:Hardly by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Whose uses drive letters any more? Is it 1991?

    4. Re:Hardly by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Why stop there?

      Fire up your hex editor, open the file and read it.

      That's the only way any self-respecting geek should enjoy their music. Actually sending it to a device for playback is redundant.

      Hell, hardcore geeks send the file through a binary LED flasher to enjoy the music.

      Anything more means you need some sort of file management. We're only talking about levels of abstraction now, and if you're going to start down that path, why not get an app that does most of the work for you?

  37. Re:Why is this News??? #editorfail by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    We've seen the knockdown blow... but this is proof that they are not answering the bell anymore and that means they're out.

    If there's any consumers left thinking their machines still work, get out. Next MacOS security hole to be announced will be unpatched on these Hackintoshes, and they'll be unsafe to put on the Internet as a result.

  38. You may find a replacement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...OS at http://www.ubuntu.com/ http://www.opensuse.org/ http://www.fedoraproject.org/ ...or you may buy the apropriate hardware for your OS at http://www.apple.com/

    Thinking that the court would accept Psystars argumentation against Apples license was foolish.

  39. Re:Calls for truth in advertising ring in the hall by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    I'd do it, but I actually follow the suggestions and try to use my frequently granted points to promote.

  40. Rebel EFI is a collection of open-source tools by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

    So just use one of them.

    (hint: I'm typing this on a PC running OSX and never even touched rebelEFI)

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  41. You don't need Rebel EFI by MrCrassic · · Score: 3, Informative

    Step 1. Go to InsanelyMac and find the links for the Chamelion (sp?) boot loader. This will do practically the same thing, from what I've been told, and it worked extremely well for me when I used OS X on my Dell (took it off b/c I wanted real Office and some other Windows-preferred applications, but didn't want it in a VM).

    Step 2 While you're at InsanelyMac, look for a tutorial on how to install OS X on your hardware. If there are none (which shouldn't be the case if the computer's popular somewhat), there are default methods to follow, which can help you give back by making one!

    Step 3. Install OS X, hope that nothing breaks and enjoy!

  42. Get Real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see, buy an unauthorized clone and expect the system to continue working. What's wrong with that logic?

  43. Rebel EFI is pirated free software. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am amazed that people have any serious discussions about this, or that they call it "Pystar's Rebel EFI". Rebel EFI is an open source program that was stripped of copyright notices, renamed, and re-distributed without authorization. To assign it to Pystar, and certainly to give Pystar money for it, is dignity that they don't deserve.

  44. Re:rouge movement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    vee haf vays of making you vear ze cheek makeup!

  45. LOL!!! by rudy_wayne · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You bought software containing DRM (ie, requries "activation"). You deserve to be screwed.

    Seriously. Activation means you don't really own it. And if you don't own it, you can't control it. And if you can't control it then it *WILL* be take away from you eventually.

    You would think people would have figured this out by now.

  46. You should have just bought a Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Preface: I've become a fanboy, sorry.

    I did. I ran OS X on a Dell for a while, but you know what? I really didn't want to deal with all the little pain in the ass things that happen when you run OS X on non-OSX hardware. No matter what you do, there is ALWAYS something not working right.

    As soon as I bothered to educate myself a little about OS X on Mac hardware (The trackpad pre-right click/gestures sucked ass :) I just bit the bullet and bought one.

    It wasn't cheap, but its been a good machine so far my only complaint is the cooling (lack of) and heat it generates. Other than that its nicer than the Dell I ran OS X on, and cost less (a year or so down the road).

    Running a hackint0sh is fine if you're trying not to spend any money. If you're going to buy something to do it, just buy a damn machine and do it legit, its a lot less of a bother.

    The irony of it though is that I'm posting this on a MBP, using Chrome running on Windows 7. What can I say, I had an itch to game a little :)

  47. You are not really getting it, are you? by vladkrupin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no legal trick, no dirty tactic. Yes, EULAs are horrible, blah, blah, blah, I agree with all of that. But that is totally beside the point.

    The point is that the software is Apple's. Period. They can do whatever they want with it. If they want to sell it, they can. If they want to open-source it, they can. If they want to attach a EULA, they can. If they want to _refuse_ to sell it to you, they can. If they want to bundle it with hardware, they can. If they want to add DRM, they can. Get it? It's theirs. They can do whatever they want.

    Now, what can you do? You can: (1) Play by Apple's rules and do whatever their license allows you to do or (2) Feel free to create your own OS. When you create it, it's yours, and you can do whatever you want with it -- sell, refuse to sell, add DRM, not add DRM, etc.

    Apple can do whatever they want. You (and psystar, and everyone else) can't do jack besides whatever is allowed by Apple's license. It's that simple. Tough luck.

    --

    Jobs? Which jobs?
    1. Re:You are not really getting it, are you? by Budenny · · Score: 1

      This commonly stated point of view is plain wrong. Apple, like all other suppliers of any product, does business in accordance with the law of the applicable jurisdiction. The law relating to the installation of OSX on white boxes is copyright, specifically Title 17, first sale, contract law, and the various sale of goods and consumer protection legislation. The question is whether Apple can simultaneously sell OSX at retail in the form of fully functioning retail copies, and also then tell the buyer on what hardware he may install it.

      Psystar fell at the first fence in terms of testing this. Their method of operation breached copyright.

      What they did was to buy a copy of OSX. They then installed it on a Mini. So far they were legal.

      Next they modified this installed copy, which created a derivative work. Probably at this point they were borderline. If done solely for their own use, probably they would have been OK.

      But they now went on to use this as a master copy to install the derivative work on other machines. Breach of copyright.

      They next transferred the derivative works to customers, sometimes having included other copies of OSX than the one installed from, sometimes even failing to do that. This was also breach of copyright. Even were the modifications essential to use with the new machine, transfer of those modifications is only lawful under Title 17 if you get the consent of the copyright holder.

      But this is all about Psystar's method of operation. It is not about the rights and wrongs of the matter. Whether if you install OSX on a white box, or have someone do it for you on the white box you own, and with a retail copy you own, is a quite different issue and has not been tested. It is going to turn on the issue of whether you are the owner, or the licensee. The case of Blizzard and the case of Vernor vs Autodesk are in conflict here, and the issue is moot.

      If you are the owner, then contrary to the above post, your installation on the machine of your choice is protected by section 117 of Title 17. This allows you to make any adaptations and copies which are essential to use with a machine. If your copies are lawful, then circumventing protections in order to make them will also be lawful. In terms of the EULA and contract law, it is not clear that post sale restrictions on use are in fact enforceable. It is not clear, for instance, that if Apple were to put in their EULA the condition that you were forbidden to load and run Open Office on your Mac, this would be enforceable. Other conditions that are not clearly enforceable might include if MS forbade you to install Windows for dual boot on a Mac, if they forbade you to install Windows in a VM, if they forbade you to run Office under Wine.

      It is a common cry of the Mac Fanatic that OSX is Apple's and they can do what they like, and if you don't like it don't buy it. But it is both false in terms of the way that business law works in the US, and it is wrong as a matter of public policy, since were it correct, it would permit wholesale anti competitive action by companies, which would have the potential for harming Apple and its customers as much as anyone. The whole intellectual pseudo problem is created by the desire of the Mac Fanatics to have one set of rules for Apple, and another for everyone else. But this is not how the law works.

      Bottom line: if they sell it at retail you can install it on whatever you want. If they do not like this, it is them that has to change, and stop selling it at retail in a form which is installable on machines they do not like. And if you can do it yourself, you can pay someone to do it, as long as you own the software and hardware at the time of the work being done.

    2. Re:You are not really getting it, are you? by Splab · · Score: 1

      No no no NO! Just because they add a license doesn't mean normal local laws doesn't apply any longer. In the EU for instance consumers are rather well protected by consumer laws and most EULA's wouldn't stand a chance in court.

      If Apple wants to sell products in the EU they must respect local laws, Apple can't do whatever they want...

    3. Re:You are not really getting it, are you? by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      No no no NO! Just because they add a license doesn't mean normal local laws doesn't apply any longer.

      Unfortunately No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

      The DMCA (and its international equivalents) is also a bugger in this case since it prohibits circumventing a protection system. However, it seems a bit rich to criticise Apple for this when other publishers (including Psystar) rely on this to impose "product activation" which is fare more offensive than anything Apple do.

      Equally unfortunately, this was pretty irrelevant in the Psystar case for the reasons stated by the GP post.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    4. Re:You are not really getting it, are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they want to _refuse_ to sell it to you, they can.

      I bet you say that to all the darkies.

    5. Re:You are not really getting it, are you? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Contract law makes it legal to restrict the right of first sale. Have you ever heard of an NDA? Yeah, they also restrict the right of first sale in some instances.

    6. Re:You are not really getting it, are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple chooses to sell it to resellers. Resellers sell it to you. This means you can use it without a license. Apple decided that it would be more profitable to them, to allow people to legally obtain the software without signing a license, and instead by bound by the much looser terms of copyright law.

      And that doesn't mean Pystar is allowed to modify it and sell derived works without a license. But it sure as hell does mean you can run it on a non-Mac. Legally.

    7. Re:You are not really getting it, are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replace all instances of Apple with Microsoft and all of a sudden, you're looking at an anti-trust case. Hmm.

    8. Re:You are not really getting it, are you? by Splab · · Score: 1

      Why are you linking to a US decision about EULA when I'm talking about EU? You are aware that they are two entirely different beasts right?

    9. Re:You are not really getting it, are you? by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Why are you linking to a US decision about EULA when I'm talking about EU? You are aware that they are two entirely different beasts right?

      Why are you talking about the EU when the Apple/Psystar case was in the US?

      Anyway - AFAIK the situation is not significantly different in the EU (and the various EU member states differ anyway). The only arguments refer to whether specific terms in specific EULAs are unfair and whether EULA terms are visible before purchase (e.g. this old story) - not whether EULAs are valid at all.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  48. Amazing. by Narcogen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People really are amazing.

    "I purchased Rebel EFI in support of Psystar's crusade back in October."

    In other words, you did so for reasons that were, at least in part, ideological. Unwilling to pay the price Apple sets for the hardware/software combinations it sells, and seemingly unable to use any of the available open source solutions for installing a retail OS X disc onto commodity hardware, you chose to patronize a company whose business model was widely known to be legally questionable at best, and which was engaged in an ongoing legal battle with a company with the intent and resources to defend their assertion that Psystar's business practice was illegal.

    I found this out when I upgraded my hard drive and installed Snow Leopard using Rebel EFI. The program can no longer 'phone home' to activate or download/install drivers. This is a direct contradiction to Psystar's promise posted on their website: 'Psystar will continue to support all of its existing customers of hardware and software through this transitional period. Warranties on hardware will continue to be honored as long the customer has a valid warranty.

    Now, having ignored those who posted that they felt Psystar was doing something wrong by selling their so-called "Open Computers" as well as those who suggested that the core of the Rebel EFI product itself was code copied without license or attribution from existing open source projects designed to accomplish the same aim, you wish to take Psystar to task for failing to meet the promises on its website.

    What made you think this was a company that intended to keep its promises?

    What made you think this was a company that would be able to stay in business long enough to keep any promises it actually did intend to?

    You didn't spend your money on a product, and you didn't pay it to a going concern. You made your purchase to make a statement-- that you believed Psystar was doing something good, or at least something right. Your voice was heard; unfortunately, things did not turn out that well.

    What more can you possibly ask? This is like picking a lame horse to win because of the great payoff odds, and then beating it into glue when it fails to place.

    Sorry, I don't have a car analogy for this. Give me a minute.

  49. Wow... deja vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I purchased Crack Rocks in support of my drug dealer's crusade back in October. Just 3 short months later, I have no support. I found this out when I upgraded my pipe and got high as the lords using Crack Rocks. The mind can no longer 'phone home' to think or comprehend clearly. This is a direct contradiction to my drug dealer's promise posted on their website: 'Drug Dealer will continue to support all of its existing customers of pipes and rocks through this transitional period. Warranties on pipes will continue to be honored as long the customer has a valid warranty. Crack Rock support for existing customers, as always, will remain exclusively available through email and the built-in ticket interface.' Has anyone else run into this issue? It has been 9 days with no response from my drug dealer by e-mail or phone.

  50. wtf? (sorry, can't think of a better title) by pbjones · · Score: 1

    you expect a company that has no regard for an EULA to keep it's own word and support their own users? good luck with that. I hope that they return...

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  51. Re:first post by Khyber · · Score: 1, Troll

    "Also relevant:
    Slashdot doesn't feature ways to crack Windows activation, but it does feature workarounds to Apple restrictions. Why?"

    If you don't have the brains to figure this one out, you don't belong here. Any moron can crack windows. Apple is bit more difficult, and also Apple is becomign Microsoft - usually more helpful to bite the company in the ass first rather than letting it bite you in the ass.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  52. Re:Why did anyone support Pystar in the first plac by indiechild · · Score: 1

    Something that mystifies me is the large amount of people who evidently jailbreak their iPhones and customise it in numerous bizarre ways. To me, that defeats the whole point of having an iPhone or owning an Apple product. I can't see why they won't just buy an Android device and be done with it. I buy Apple gear because it works well for me out of the box, and I don't want to mess around with the internals much.

  53. Re:first post by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

    Technically, Rebel EFI doesn't crack Apple restrictions, that still needs to be done by other means. It's an EFI emulator. Nice use of rhetoric, though. Not quite at the level of "You wouldn't steal a car, don't pirate a movie", though.

  54. Geek Guns by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes I know, I'll get modded offtopic. Don't care.

    Windows Geek Gun - Looks sharp and advertises all sorts of 'new' features. However, one in ten times when one pulls the trigger the gun fails to fire and instead jams.

    Linux Geek Gun - Good looking but also utilitarian. Very reliable but unfortunately the typical user of this gun is in the habit of taking it apart and rebuilding it often. In those cases it is unusuable until it's done being re(compiled)built.

    Mac Geek Gun - Sleek, stylish, and very easy to use, but one has to buy bullets from only one manufacturer. It also only allows itself to be fired in certain directions because the manufacturer knows best.

    DOS Geek Gun - A single action revolver.

    CPM Geek Gun - A musket.

    Give me a break. It's 4:00 AM EST here right now and I couldn't sleep so I'm not as sharp as I should be :p

    1. Re:Geek Guns by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Don't forget: Mac Geek Gun - Looks great, is stylish, but a week later a new version is released, with slightly faster firing rate and two extra bullets.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
  55. Signal to noise ratio low... by Mage66 · · Score: 1

    Every time a Psystar thread is posted, it degenerates into people attacking each other over EULAs, Licesing, stealing IP, etc... This is ground covered constantly to no good result. Just once, I'd like a Psystar thread to contain useful information about Psystar and it's possible future. I'm tired of the flaming, attacks, and rehashing of old crap. An easy way to turn generic hardware into a Hackintosh would be great. I own many Macs of all vintages. I have several 3 - 5 year old PC's, the newest being a Dell Dimension 530 I'd love to turn into a Mac Desktop since it's faster and has a bigger HDD than my Core Duo 2.0ghz Mini. Someday, I might be able to afford a new iMac or a Mac Pro tower. But, there's just too much noise in every Psystar thread. Like 99 to 1, noise to signal.

  56. Re:Basil by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Yep, growing fodder too :P

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  57. Pystar still selling software by AG+the+other · · Score: 1

    http://www.psystar.com/rebel_efi

    That's sort of the ultimate rip off.

    --
    Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
  58. you get what you pay for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    next time don't try to be cheap and buy a real mac instead

  59. Re:Why did anyone support Pystar in the first plac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is simply not possible that you are an engineer: you actually VOLUNTEERED to provide RELEVANT input with MATERIAL information, without jargon or intellectual condescension, all in a timely fashion and using elegant, clear language.

    Those facts give you away as SOME kind of troll. Now be honest: who ARE you and what are you UP to? How's the new liver working, Steve?

    Signed (ironically, for the humor-impaired),

    Technical writer (HW and SW) with 30 years in the industry

  60. Re:Why did anyone support Pystar in the first plac by vadim_t · · Score: 1

    3 reasons:

    1. Android and the N900 didn't exist back when the iPhone was released.
    2. When it was released it was obviously capable but without applications, which gave plenty motivation for jailbreaking.
    3. If I bought it, it's mine, and I'll take it apart if I please.

  61. Haha...no really you did what?...hahahahahahaha... by CountBrass · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "I bought some kit from some guys who were ripping off some other FOSS guys and now they've ripped me off". Lie down with dogs and you'll get up with fleas.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  62. Fools by Renraku · · Score: 1

    Alright, since 100% of posts so far have been about flaming the guy or calling him retarded, I'm sure he already knows. How about back to the original topic? What should he do to get his software back? There SHOULD be a law in place stating that if a product can no longer be 'activated' it must be 'unlocked' permanently and for free. Yes, this includes hosting servers for games that no longer have master servers (including MMOs).

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Fools by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Why?

      How is this different to a company that sells a physical product that is unique but subsequently goes out of business. If your product that has been working up to that point then later fails (say you need to replace a unique widget that is no longer manufactured) then you are on your own - you either have to look for third party help to make a replacement, or look for someone who happens to have a spare somewhere. The original company doesn't owe you anything.

      I don't see this as any different - the product requires activation and won;t work when those servers are gone. Either you have to hack around it, or look for third party help to fill the gap left by the thing that no longer works. You know ahead of time that it requires online activation.

      I hate it as much as the next guy and think it is a woeful business practice, but if you buy a product that has it, you have to be aware that it won;t work if the company goes tits up.

  63. A Bob Dylan Quote by Swift2001 · · Score: 1

    "To live outside the law, you must be honest."

    It should have been painfully obvious to you that Psystar was headed for the trashheap. I am not disapproving of hackers who put Mac software on generic hardware. Fine with me, and you don't get much fight from Apple, either. But running this operation? Seriously? Have they ever heard of Apple's lawyers? The judge flatly rejected their arguments, which you often still see in these forums. It's a straight case of copyright law.

    Like Dylan said, you can live outside the law, but you better be honest when you do. YOU DON'T NEED that piece of commercial crap you bought because you were a good Party member.

  64. i_spit_on_the_brain_slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have rebel.. will not authenticate,but it was worth it,my self made desktop is working top notch, i will never buy a true mac desktop no matter what you stupid apple fanboys say or your leader tells you to say, i hate the mac cult since its changing mac into just another greed driven company..
    look at how they blocked devices from using itunes
    how they blocked google voice
    how they take over companies so they can control every part of the process
    this is why i am happy to feel some satisfaction in doing my little part to screw them over the way they did to me when they blocked my iphone from using voip over 3g, and when they didnt provide 64bit drives for my mac unibody , actually the whole unibody sherade is a shame
    then to top it they lie all the time , the new battery is only slightly better less than an hour , but they wan to suck you dry , after over paying for warranty and macbook , now you can only buy the battery from mac
    mac; the biggest thieves are them, so they cant tell any one what to do
    i love psystar , and i will buy more from them, if not there is another company with similar offer(http://www.expresshd.com/) that no one seem to be bitching about ?
    wonder why ?