Mac Clone Maker Saga Ends As SCOTUS Denies Appeal

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mac Clone Maker Saga Ends As SCOTUS Denies Appeal

Posted by timothy on Tuesday May 15, 2012 @05:36AM from the we-are-sad dept.

CWmike writes "The four-year-old saga of Psystar, a Florida Mac clone maker that was crushed by Apple, ended Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear its appeal of a lower court ruling. The decision to not consider the case (download PDF) upheld a ruling last September by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That ruling confirmed a permanent injunction against Psystar that prevented the company from copying, using or selling OS X, and blocked it from selling machines with Apple's operating system preinstalled. 'We are sad,' said K.A.D. Camera of the Houston firm Camera & Sibley LLP, in an email reply today to a request for comment. Camera represented Psystar in its bid to get its appeal heard. 'I expect the Supreme Court will eventually take a case on this important issue.' Last year, Camera had said, 'This is far from over,' after the Ninth Circuit's decision. Apparently, it is."

61 of 430 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Certainly won't stop..... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · 2012-05-15 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Hackintosh efforts by hackers though. It was a noble effort Psystar!
Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 05:40 · Score: 5, Informative

Even if they had a case they still stole copyrighted code from OSx86 and Rebel EFI was stolen from Boot 132 EFI.
Boo hoo, they're dead.
Not related by daveschroeder · 2012-05-15 05:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hackers/hobbyists have zero to do with a company selling a product which affirmatively violates another company's software license.
1. Re:Not related by Enderandrew · 2012-05-15 05:51 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Should Apple have the right to demand the software can only run on their hardware?
  Remember when Atari tried blocking third-party software from their hardware and a judge ruled that they must allow for third-party use of their hardware?
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
2. Re:Not related by idontgno · 2012-05-15 05:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Remember when Apple tried blocking third-party hardware from their software and a judge ruled that they can?
  Sometimes you get the bear. Sometimes the bear gets you. And wishing for consistency among different actions at law with only surface similarities is much too much to ask for.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
3. Re:Not related by Aeros · 2012-05-15 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Of course they have the right. It's their product. No matter how much the majority of the people hate this and have to pay a premium for their hardware products...but they do have the right to do so.
4. Re:Not related by brian_tanner · 2012-05-15 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  You doubt that Apple would sue the pants off you if you did the same thing in your basement and posted instructions on a website regarding how you did it? Go ahead, try... see what happens.
  Yeah. Like this? http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
5. Re:Not related by uniquename72 · 2012-05-15 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You doubt that Apple would sue the pants off you if you did the same thing in your basement and posted instructions on a website regarding how you did it? Go ahead, try... see what happens.
  What happens? Nothing.
  
  Apple's problems wasn't that they were doing it; it's that they were selling it.
6. Re:Not related by Cinder6 · 2012-05-15 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Should Apple have the right to demand the software can only run on their hardware?
  Remember when Atari tried blocking third-party software from their hardware and a judge ruled that they must allow for third-party use of their hardware?
  I'm pretty sure that's not the same thing. Apple is saying that only they have the right to build machines that can run their software, not that you can't write/sell software to run on their machines.
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
7. Re:Not related by daveschroeder · 2012-05-15 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  You doubt that Apple would sue the pants off you if you did the same thing in your basement and posted instructions on a website regarding how you did it? Go ahead, try... see what happens.
  Okay.
  I'm sure you can point me to numerous examples of Apple suing individual hackers/hobbyists running hackintosh configurations.
8. Re:Not related by jythie · 2012-05-15 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  While conceptually the same, legally they are pretty different cases (which is why Atari v. Activision did not count as precedent in this case) since one involved stopping people from running things on their hardware while this one had to do with Apple controlling who could and could not sell its software.
  
  I want to say this case was baffling, but I am actually not surprised. Courts have been pretty favorable to companies trying to control how their products are sold/marketed lately and they do not really conflict with earlier rulings.
  
  Though the irony is, of course, that with the DMCA today, Atari v. Activision would have ruled rather differently.
9. Re:Not related by gnasher719 · 2012-05-15 06:05 · Score: 3
  
  Remember when Atari tried blocking third-party software from their hardware and a judge ruled that they must allow for third-party use of their hardware?
  This is all about copyright. Copyright allows the owner of the copyright to allow or disallow copying of their software, as they see fit. Note: Copying of _their_ software. That is what Apple does. They allow you to use _their_ software, MacOS X, on Apple branded computers, and not on other computers. I don't know about that Atari case, but what you say means Atari tried to prevent you from using someone else's software. Not _their_ software.
  
  If Apple told you that you cannot run Windows, or Linux, on a Macintosh, that would be a completely different matter. But anyway, you ask this question, _after_ a court decided that Apple has that right, and another court decided, and SCOTUS denied an appeal about it?
10. Re:Not related by jythie · 2012-05-15 06:05 · Score: 2
  
  Well, technically they couldn't, or at minimal they could not use this ruling as a basis for a lawsuit. This one covered Psystar reselling copies of OSX, in theory in violation of the license agreement that they obtained the software under. So as long as your instructions did not come with a 'buy OSX now and we install it' button, such a site would be fine. Provided of course it didn't have any DMCA violations.
11. Re:Not related by Enderandrew · 2012-05-15 06:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It was Apple's product, but once you purchase it, it becomes your product.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
  In theory, first sale doctrine says that once you purchase the software you should have the right to do with it what you want.
  Judges have made conflicting rulings in this area. You can apparently ignore the DMCA and jailbreak your iPhone if you want, because you own the phone and you have the right to try and unlock more features with the hardware if you want. Some judges have said that mod chips on consoles are legal in and of themselves. They are only illegal when you pirate games.
  Here, judges are ruling that the DMCA trumps consumer rights.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
12. Re:Not related by Grishnakh · 2012-05-15 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  That ruling was back in the good old days of the 80s when things weren't nearly as overtly corrupt in this country as they are now.
13. Re:Not related by ShadowRangerRIT · 2012-05-15 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  Of course? If they sell the software separately, what makes it so obvious that they have the right to say how it will be used? We don't seem to have this sort of system for physical objects. If I buy a car, I can do whatever I want with it (within the law) without checking the rules laid down by the manufacturer. Sure, it may void the warranty, but it's not illegal. Beyond that, lots of software specifies the OS its supposed to run on. If I run a Windows app under WINE, have I somehow broken the law?
  It's a much harder line to draw than you make it seem. In my opinion, Apple might be in the right on this specific point, but this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior. Only Apple can sell OSX, and they're using the software monopoly to artificially prop up their hardware division.
  
  --
  $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
14. Re:Not related by gnasher719 · 2012-05-15 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Apple's problems wasn't that they were doing it; it's that they were selling it.
  Not so much that they were selling it, but the fact that they insisted very, very loudly that they had the right to do so, and that Apple could do nothing about it. Apple really had no choice but to sue them. In the Hackintosh community, they all know that what they are doing isn't quite legal, but they also know that Apple will ignore this (since little damage is done, and there is probably a knowledgable bunch of people who will be assisting Apple's customers with problems when the need arises. I bet many Hackintosh users take their Grandma straight to the Apple Store when she needs a computer). The only thing they need to do is behave in such a way that Apple _can_ ignore them.
15. Re:Not related by Enderandrew · 2012-05-15 06:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That's my point. By placing the DMCA above all other relevant laws, Atari v. Activision would be ruled differently. I don't like this new precedent and what it bodes for the future.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
16. Re:Not related by wierd_w · 2012-05-15 06:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What about the atari cartridge compatibility with colecovision's "module #1" expansion?
  That's practically a dead ringer.
  Colecovision created a hardware emulation module for their technologically superior console that enabled it to use atari 2600 rom carts, thus increasing the available software library immensely.
  Atari tried to sue coleco, but lost, since the entire 2600 could be produced using off the shelf parts. (Sound familiar?)
  Stanford mentions that this case was more a battle of clones, rather than emulation, and mentions that it should not be employed as precedent in cases surrounding emulation. However psystar is not emulating a modern mac at all. It is running on bare metal, on a clone.
  For all intents and purposes, the cases are remarkably similar, with the exception of the DMCA.
  However, it was my understanding that psystar was creating clones before the DMCA was enacted, so surely some form of estoppel qualifies in this particular case?
17. Re:Not related by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-05-15 06:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This had nothing to do with the DMCA. Psystar was violating the license to the software. This is no different to a hypothetical OEM being sued by Microsoft for violating the license to their copies of Windows. First sale doctrine doesn't allow you to violate the EULA.
18. Re:Not related by MightyYar · 2012-05-15 06:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  but this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior.
  They only have like 5% of the market?
  
  Only Apple can sell OSX, and they're using the software monopoly to artificially prop up their hardware division.
  Or, they only make OSX because they want to sell hardware. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
  My problem with the decision is that it defies my concept of contract law... I always thought that to have a valid contract there had to be consideration on both sides - I get something in exchange for something else. In this case, I get nothing. I hit "I Accept" on the license agreement and Apple gets all of these extra rights and I get... nothing. At that point, I've already purchased the machine. I presumed these contracts were worthless, but this decision changes that.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
19. Re:Not related by compro01 · 2012-05-15 06:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  First sale doctrine doesn't allow you to violate the EULA.
  That's pretty much the entire bloody intent of the doctrine.
  See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus.
  "The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a lower price, and a sale at a lower price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright" was tossed out as an invalid use of copyright. An EULA is no different.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
20. Re:Not related by robot256 · 2012-05-15 06:42 · Score: 2
  
  It does if the EULA is deemed invalid/illegal in court. I assume Psystar was hoping this would happen, but it was not, so that's that.
21. Re:Not related by Darinbob · 2012-05-15 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  So if you purchase the hardware and that gives you the right to put any software you want on it; why can you also claim that because you purchased the software that you have the right to run it anywhere you want?
22. Re:Not related by bws111 · 2012-05-15 07:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You do get something when you click "Accept", you get the ability to use the software.
  A license is not a contract. A license is pretty much a one-way document from one party granting certain permissions to a second party that otherwise they would not have. The license people are most familiar with of course is your driver license. Did you get to negotiate the rules of the road with the state when you got your driver license? Of course not - the license is a one-way document given to you by the state. Without such a license you have no permission to drive on public roads. With the license (which comes with a whole bunch of restrictions and ways the license can be revoked) you can drive on public roads.
  With software, you do not own the software (even with FOSS). Since it is not 'yours' you have no permission to do anything with it by default. If you want to use the software, you can get a license to do so. That is not a contract.
23. Re:Not related by ShadowRangerRIT · 2012-05-15 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  but this is almost the definition of monopolistic behavior.
  They only have like 5% of the market?
  Closer to 10% now, though your point still stands. That said, it depends on where you draw the distinction between products. Sure, virtually any application could be written to run on virtually any OS. But if you want to run OSX exclusive apps without reinventing them from scratch (which hits all sorts of other IP laws), OSX is your only choice. If Apple machines were some sort of special purpose device, then the argument for linking them together is stronger, but they're clearly not special purpose; the software is sold separately, the hardware is off-the-shelf, etc.
  I'm not saying you're wrong. But there is something very odd about a business model that becomes illegal simply by growing in market share. And if OSX were really "just" another desktop OS, then no one would bother making clones. But if you treat Apple as having a monopoly on "OSX" rather than a small share of the "desktop OS" market, then the picture is very different. There's nothing wrong with having a monopoly on OSX, but abusing the monopoly to improve sales of their other product lines is problematic.
  
  --
  $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
24. Re:Not related by bws111 · 2012-05-15 07:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Because software is never sold, only a license to use it is sold.
25. Re:Not related by MightyYar · 2012-05-15 07:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But there is something very odd about a business model that becomes illegal simply by growing in market share.
  That's the norm, though. Microsoft was perfectly in the right when they would pay partner companies to be exclusive MS vendors... until they became a monopoly.
  I'd argue that Apple's model is the normal model and Microsoft's was the anomaly. The Amiga, Atari, Commodore - heck even the IBM PC prior to Compaq... all of these followed the proprietary model. Even MS follows this model in the console game market. But no one accuses the XBox360 of having a monopoly over anything.
  Finally, all of this seems to be moot now - as of Lion, it seems that Apple no longer sells standalone copies of their OS. Pystar could not exist one way or another since they wouldn't have any (legal) way to buy just the software.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
26. Re:Not related by chrb · 2012-05-15 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  Closer to 10% now
  No, still only 5%...
27. Re:Not related by bws111 · 2012-05-15 07:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  A book (the physical object) is not covered by copyright, therefore attempting to restrict sales of books can not be done by using copyright. The copyright holder would however be perfectly within their rights to say to a publisher 'you may not give reproduction rights to anyone for less than $1 a copy.
  This however has nothing to do with this case, as Pystar was not simply reselling the CD the software came on, they were installing it.
28. Re:Not related by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-05-15 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  WTF are talking about. They make servers for OS X. Get a freakin' clue.
29. Re:Not related by jedidiah · 2012-05-15 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  > Of course they have the right. It's their product.
  Their rights to control the product end when they sell it.
  This is a clear attack on individual liberties that not everyone agrees with. Some of us prefer not to degrade individual liberties for the sake of a brand fetish or corporate power.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
30. Re:Not related by jedidiah · 2012-05-15 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  They sold me a box? Then they sold me a box.
  It doesn't matter what secret aftermarket excuses for a contract are inside the box.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
31. Re:Not related by MightyYar · 2012-05-15 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  you get the ability to use the software.
  Huh? Then what did I get when I bought it at the register?
  
  A license is not a contract.
  I think you are wrong about that.
  
  Did you get to negotiate the rules of the road with the state when you got your driver license?
  Negotiation has nothing to do with it. I got something (the right to drive) and I gave them something (money). But I was referring to private contracts, not government laws... the government can pass all sorts of laws without my consent.
  
  With software, you do not own the software
  True, but copyright comes with some fair use rights - including the right to copy the software that I've purchased in as much as is technologically necessary to make it usable. Thus I have no need to agree to the shrink-wrap license - I'll be fine just using the statutory license, thank you. Microsoft handles the situation with technology - the software that they sell can't be made usable until you activate it, at which point they make you agree to a contract (license). You get something (activation) and they get something (additional restrictions on your use of their product). Apple has no such technical roadblock, so they were relying on the law - and I am still confused as to how the shrink-wrap license was upheld, but it still seems to be related to the re-selling. I'm wondering what this means if I try to sell an old computer on eBay, even if the software on it was lawfully installed and I include the original disks... there could be a no-reselling clause in the shrink-wrap license that I am violating.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
32. Re:Not related by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So before long you're going to see guns that can only fire bullets manufactured by those licensed by the gun manufacturer, and cars that can only run on gas produced under license by the automobile's manufacturer.
  Or not, only Apple iCult victims would put up with that kind of bullshit. If you were considering buying a Chevy, and then found out it will only run on Mobil gasoline... you'd demand a refund. If they didn't give it to you, you'd point the car at the big plate-glass window in the front of the dealership, drop a brick on the gas pedal... you get the idea.
  Only people who want to use OS X would put up with this kind of nonsense. The good news is Apple ripped off almost every idea in their operating system from someone else, so you can get the same features, if not the same slick-ass star-trekkie looking interface, from other sources.
33. Re:Not related by Em+Adespoton · 2012-05-15 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  Should Apple have the right to demand the software can only run on their hardware?
  Remember when Atari tried blocking third-party software from their hardware and a judge ruled that they must allow for third-party use of their hardware?
  I'm pretty sure that's not the same thing. Apple is saying that only they have the right to build machines that can run their software, not that you can't write/sell software to run on their machines.
  That's not what I got from this: what I got is that Apple is saying only they have the right to pre-install their software on hardware and sell the package.
  To me, this is a grey zone, as I'm within my rights to resell my Mac with OS X installed; I'm not within my rights to void the agreement on OS X and sell it on a netbook.
34. Re:Not related by Endo13 · 2012-05-15 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  Doesn't matter. Software licenses should only have the right to restrict what would impact potential sales for that software. This includes things like whether it can be used only for personal use or also for commercial use, how many concurrent copies of it can be run, etc. A software license should never impact what hardware you can run it on, as long as the use and profitability of the software itself is not affected. If anything, Psystar's use of the software increases the potential profitability of it, because it can be used on more devices. If they're using the software as a loss-leader, well, that's their problem. That's the same thing as selling console hardware at a loss, then complaining when the users use it for something other than buying your overpriced games - exactly what the previously mentioned Atari case was about.
  This is truly a horrible outcome.
  
  --
  There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
35. Re:Not related by rev0lt · 2012-05-15 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  A software license should never impact what hardware you can run it on, as long as the use and profitability of the software itself is not affected.
  There is a lot of software with memory limits, cpu socket limits and core limits, and even if the hardware is real or virtualized. As an example, Vista Home Basic 64 has a limit of 8GB of memory and 1 socket, and Vista Business 64 has a limit of 128GB and 2 sockets. And they are essentialy the same product.
36. Re:Not related by v1 · 2012-05-15 09:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Remember when Atari tried blocking third-party software from their hardware and a judge ruled that they must allow for third-party use of their hardware?
  Hardware must allow 3rd party software to run on it. That was the Atari thing.
  Now turn that 180 degrees around with: Software must allow installation on 3rd party hardware. That was the Pystar thing.
  So they couldn't be more opposite issues if they tried. The Atari issue has no relevance whatsoever here.
  Though I don't like software licenses. But unfortunately they are currently allowed. I don't like being told what I can do with software I buy any more than being told by Ford what roads I'm allowed to drive my truck on. But right now physical goods are not so easily licensed but software is. Pretty much all software is licensed because it can be, and grants additional rights to the producers. They can either take the free cookies or not, and naturally most businesses will.
  Pystar was encouraging... no, they were instructing their customers to violate the OS X license agreement, and thus break the law. That's what got them smacked down.
  I'd like the licensability of software to be outlawed personally. IMHO it's just the producers trying to "have their cake and eat it too", they want you to pay them for something, but then not GIVE it to you (retain rights over it) because that will help them make more money off you or someone else later.
  Here, I license this cake to you for $15. But on condition that only you can eat it. If your friend is hungry, you're not allowed to give him a slice, it's not really your cake, I'm just licensing it to you. If at any time you decide you don't like those terms you can either destroy the cake or return it to me.
  Or I'll license you this wrench. You can use it forever, and I'll even let you give it away, but you can't loan it to your friend to work on his car, he'll need to license another wrench from me. Think that's funny? Talk to your mechanic about his car computer testing unit. It's already reality. And those little buggers are expensive too.
  I'm surprised that BOOKS aren't licenseable right now. There's not a lot of difference between them and software. They're both just information on media. I could totally see a society where you weren't allowed to sell a book. But already we can't copy too much of it, so we're already on the path.
  God I hate licensing.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
37. Re:Not related by Lord_Jeremy · 2012-05-15 09:29 · Score: 2
  
  As it happens, the Hackintosh community as a whole was very pissed off at Psystar because Psystar had stolen some of the open source emulator/decrypter driver code that our members created and sold it closed-source (violated the copyright) and without attribution.
  
  My family has used Macs for ages. I built a couple Hackintoshes for myself and I love them. I can run regular software updates on them and they're totally stable. However when my mother wants a new Mac I will not build her one.
Too bad, really by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-05-15 05:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

I never saw what Psystar did that was actually wrong. They bought copies of software, installed them on machines, then sold those machines. That doesn't seem so bad to me. Yes, they violated the EULA that you're only allowed to install OS X on Apple hardware, or something stupid and unconscionable like that. But I have an extremely hard time seeing EULA non-compliance as a bad thing, and I think we're collectively in a worse place for it having been successfully enforced.
Type from my Apple-branded Mac. :-/

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
1. Re:Too bad, really by zonker · 2012-05-15 05:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Their bootloader code was stolen from two open source projects which they repackaged and relabeled without attribution or source. That's pretty shitty IMHO.
  
  --
  Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
2. Re:Too bad, really by BasilBrush · 2012-05-15 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  It's impossible to buy a copy of OSX without buying a Mac. Those boxes you used to be able to buy were not licensed as new installations, but upgrades.
  More recently Apple have made that a practical as well as licensing issue. They no longer ship shrinkwrapped upgrades of OSX. You now have to buy it on the App Store and download it. And you can't do that without already having OSX.
3. Re:Too bad, really by maccodemonkey · 2012-05-15 05:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I never saw what Psystar did that was actually wrong. They bought copies of software, installed them on machines, then sold those machines.
  Apple doesn't sell fully licensed copies of OS X. They only sell upgrade copies. And the only way to get your initial copy of OS X is to buy a Mac. You can buy it in a box at the Apple store, it's still only an upgrade copy.
  It would be like if a Windows OEM was buying upgrade only copies of Windows, hacking them onto blank machines, and then selling them.
  People may not like it, but that's the way OS X is licensed.
4. Re:Too bad, really by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-05-15 06:04 · Score: 2
  
  It's impossible to buy a copy of OSX without buying a Mac.
  That wasn't true as of the time when Psystar was buying them.
  
  Those boxes you used to be able to buy were not licensed as new installations, but upgrades.
  And here's the crux of the matter, and why I find the ruling so despicable: those are terms that were added after the sale through the EULA clickthrough. At the time Psystar paid Apple for their copies of OS X, there were no signed contracts showing that Psystar agreed to abide by those extra-legal terms and conditions. They were bound by normal copyright law, sure, but I'm not aware that they were ever accused of violating copyright.
  This ruling affirms the insane doctrine that a company may dictate usage terms to you after you've brought their products and taken them home. Suppose Nintendo's T&C says that you're not allowed to install Homebrew on your Wii, and that they sued you for it. Are you OK with that policy? After all, by booting your Wii you agreed to abide by all the T&C that were not consensual at the time of sale, so Nintendo should full say over how you actually use it.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
5. Re:Too bad, really by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-05-15 07:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Stop claiming that you 'buy' a software product - you don't.
  I'll stop "claiming" that I buy copies of software when the vendors stop telling me that I do. Google for "buy windows 7" and see that the first links are to "Buy Windows 7 or upgrade to another edition", "Buying Windows 7: top questions", "Find great prices & selection on Microsoft Windows software; shop & buy Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows 7 Professional, & more." with a banner ad reading "Buy Windows® 7 Now - Fast, Easy Download. Official Site.". You're awfully certain of your specious hypothesis given that Microsoft themselves contradict you.
  Try the same experiment with "buy autocad", "buy photoshop", and... wait for it... "buy os x". None of those companies say "buy a limited, EULA-bound license to use $foo as we see fit!"
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
6. Re:Too bad, really by Dynedain · 2012-05-15 08:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Wrong. Apple clearly sold both Snow Leopard in 2 forms. Full license ($129) and Upgrade from Leopard ($29).
  Previous to that, Apple did sell full boxed licenses. There was no "upgrade license" versions for anything other than machines that shipped around the same time as the OS release.
  
  --
  I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
7. Re:Too bad, really by maccodemonkey · 2012-05-15 09:06 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Wrong. Apple clearly sold both Snow Leopard in 2 forms. Full license ($129) and Upgrade from Leopard ($29).
  Previous to that, Apple did sell full boxed licenses. There was no "upgrade license" versions for anything other than machines that shipped around the same time as the OS release.
  No, that's wrong. Apple sold two licenses:
  1) A license if you owned any previous version of Mac OS.
  2) A license if you owned the preceding version of Mac OS X.
  There is no "license if I never owned Mac OS on this machine." Apple doesn't sell any machines without Mac OS, so that wouldn't make very much sense, would it? That's why it mentions all of this in the legal agreements with Mac OS X, which everyone likes to hand wave and ignore, because hey, you're willing to be a lawyer when it comes to buying a "full" copy of OS X to be "legal", but at the same time totally willing to ignore the EULA and define "full" with your own definition.
8. Re:Too bad, really by uglyduckling · 2012-05-15 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  They created copies of OSX patched with their drivers and bootloaders, as a master image on a server, and installed it on the machines they sold. That was an illegal derivative work which they had no right to distribute.
9. Re:Too bad, really by UnknowingFool · 2012-05-15 11:49 · Score: 2
  
  In order for OS X to run on a regular PC, they had to replace system software thus creating a derivative work. As a derivative work, they needed Apple's permission before redistribution and thus violated copyright.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
First sale doctrine? by Enderandrew · 2012-05-15 05:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

This gets me that first sale doctrine doesn't matter. The DMCA (which is overkill and bad legislation) takes precedence. The Psystar case reminds me of the Atari ruling, when Atari didn't want to allow third-party developers to make games for their console. Imagine if there were no third-party developers today. If Psystar legally purchased OSX software licenses, why shouldn't they be able to legally resell them with hardware? We have judges protecting a monopoly and frankly I don't understand it.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
1. Re:First sale doctrine? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-05-15 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  What monopoly? Since when did Apple hold a monopoly on PCs? Also, what does the first sale doctrine have to do with anything in this case? Psystar wasn't being sued for reselling copies of OS X.
Other jurisdictions by girlintraining · 2012-05-15 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember that there are 200 other sovereign powers in the world besides the United States. At least one of them will understand that hardware and software are separate and distinct. That country then will be at a competitive advantage in the market. The United States is falling behind on every economic indicator regarding technology. The biggest IPO in the tech sector is a guy selling this country's citizens personal data to other corporations and countries worldwide. That is the extent of innovation in the US.
It's just a matter of time before education becomes too expensive, there are no places left to do pure research, and there is no way for a company, individual, or organization, to market new, innovative products. Our mobile technology and infrastructure is third-world, our broadband internet lags behind every other first world country, and the only component left in your computer manufacturered in the US is the processor.
America is dying, and it's rulings like this that are causing it. Someday, market forces will catch up with us, and this country's economy will stagnate and fail in front of the other 5 billion people on this planet who don't live with such laws.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
How is this any different by future+assassin · 2012-05-15 06:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

then buying an engine from ford and sticking it into a kit car and re-selling it as your own brand name car. Oh yah forgot this involves that magical thing called software which when you deal with you have to throw out all common sense.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
1. Re:How is this any different by garyoa1 · 2012-05-15 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  Well you can buy an engine. You can't buy software. At least you haven't been able to for maybe a dozen years or so. Today you license it, you never own it so you can't sell it or even give it away. This is one of the problems with all the screaming about software patents and it's even getting to the point where ebooks are the same. Gone are the days when you can own anything software related. All the big companies essentially lease it. OS's, games, programs, ebooks... one owner, one machine. And as far as they're concerned... end of discussion. We're no longer considered customers, we're licensees.
  
  --
  Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
At least by Sparticus789 · 2012-05-15 06:09 · Score: 2

You can complain about Windows and Microsoft all you want, but at least they let you install their software on any hardware you want. Apple wants to control you from the motherboard up, marking up their products to ridiculous prices for overrated hardware. They do it with computers, iPod, iPhone, everything. The first down-mod from a Mac lover will just be further evidence of the truth.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:OS X R&D paid for in TWO ways... by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-05-15 06:17 · Score: 2

Apple pays for R&D costs on OSX form hardware sales primarily
...which sounds a lot like Apple's problem and not anyone else's. I know what you're getting at, but I don't believe that's a justifiable defense of Apple. For many months after launch, Sony and Microsoft subsidized the price of their gaming consoles with the expectation that buyers would purchase other high-margin games and peripherals to make up the difference. Well, some people used their consoles for media centers or integrated them into computing clusters. In those cases, Sony/MS lost on those sales. Did the buyers do anything wrong? No: they just took advantage of a favorable price point.
That Apple (or Sony or Microsoft or a razor blade manufacturer) expects me to buy and use their products in a certain way is their issue to deal with.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
EULAs are like that by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-15 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I never saw what Psystar did that was actually wrong. They bought copies of software, installed them on machines, then sold those machines. That doesn't seem so bad to me. Yes, they violated the EULA that you're only allowed to install OS X on Apple hardware, or something stupid and unconscionable like that. But I have an extremely hard time seeing EULA non-compliance as a bad thing, and I think we're collectively in a worse place for it having been successfully enforced.
Type from my Apple-branded Mac. :-/
Suppose I buy a retail copy of Windows and install it on, say, three PCs, which I use at my small business. Would you see anything wrong with that? After all, I paid for my Windows CD. The only thing "wrong" that I did was ignore an obscure clause in the Windows EULA that said that the particular license I paid for was only valid for a single PC.
Is it right that Microsoft, through one sentence of legalese, should be able to arbitrarily restrict what I do with the copy of Windows that I bought and paid for? I didn't "steal" the install media. I even didn't download Windows off of a .torrent without paying. It's not as if Microsoft lost anything tangible; indeed, they received more money from me than they would if I hadn't bought that copy of Windows for those three PCs. And Microsoft's costs didn't increase one cent, either. There is absolutely no technical reason why I should not be able to do this with the product that I purchased. The only reason why that clause exists in the license is to maximize Microsoft's profit.
Ad yet, for some reason, you probably find nothing unusual about this totally arbitrary limitation.
Yet you get all up in arms when a different vendor places an equally arbitrary restriction on the software they distribute?
Distant relations by Weatherlawyer · 2012-05-15 06:44 · Score: 2

Apple is saying that only the Chinese have the right to build machines that can run their software, not that you can't write/sell software to run on their machines.
Sounds logical, sound logic.
And I applaud the legal system that defends to the death, their right to do so. How much does it cost and where can I get one?
(I hope it comes free of all that socialist welfare stuff.) Can you assure me that if people can't afford the banking system that goes with it, they will be thrown out of their homes and the premises locked up until they decay from within?
Nothing smells like the smell of excess.
Re:Different cases by Webcommando · 2012-05-15 09:07 · Score: 2

If the law changes then it is indeed "Apple's Problem", and they will have to figure out some other combination of pricing to make the revenue work for them.
I think many people who are pushing the agenda to allow hackintosh companies want cheap hardware with the cheap high-quality Apple OSX. However, OSX is inexpensive (relatively) because it is an upgrade and is tied to the HW sale. If the law changes, we will all get the wonderful benefit of paying MS level retail prices for OSX and wonderful DRM and activation. I wouldn't be surprised if we even see the same ridiculous price structure we see from MS today instead of the simple one-size for all.

--
I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
Re:OS X R&D paid for in TWO ways... by gmhowell · 2012-05-15 16:39 · Score: 2

Apple trusted people and got burned. How often have we heard "if companies would get rid of serial numbers, phoning home, blah, blah, blah and offer software at a reasonable price, we'd buy it"? Well, Apple did all of that, and people still want to find a way to fuck over Apple. For all the erstwhile nerds around here, they never seem to understand TANSTAAFL.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon