MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Feb 20, 09 - 06:36 pm Comment from: ken1w

If Psystar actually wins the case with its ridiculous "we bought the box with a Leopard installation disc inside so we can do whatever we want with it" argument, Apple has a simple solution.

For any future release of Mac OS X, the UPGRADE retail box for upgrading any existing supported Mac model - $129. The unsupported FULL INSTALLATION retail box for installing Mac OS X on a computer that did not originally come with Mac OS X - $1029.

Wow looks like we have a winner here with Ken1w...... that is an answer I would expect from a 15y/o noob. I guess now we all know more about you

@Afib

Um - I'm just a 33 year old noob who works in the industry and I can't see the problem with Ken1w's suggestion.

Have the OS ship on macs for free; charge $129 for an "upgrade" and $1000 (or more) for a full install. That would completely eliminate any claims in this lawsuit. And if a company did want to build a legal hackintosh - no one would buy it because it would be too expensive.

What about this idea doesn't make sense to you?

Feb 20, 09 - 07:33 pm Comment from: silverhawk

Who is the real money behind psystar? A simple clone maker cannot afford the lawyers fees.

Feb 20, 09 - 07:35 pm Comment from: ken1w

@ Afib

Leopard-in-a-box is already sold as an "upgrade" for existing Mac OS X computers, for $129 retail. It just does not have the word "upgrade" on the box because the license only allows installation on Apple Macintosh computers, so there would be no point. Any legal installation would be an UPGRADE.

Ken1w's suggestion works for me. I can also see, if Psystar is successful, is Apple tying the operating system to the hardware with some sort of dongle. I never plan on buying one of these possible third-party hardware Frankensteins anyway. It's the idea that these people want OS X, but are too cheap to pony up the cash like the rest of us.

Feb 20, 09 - 08:30 pm Comment from: AAPLguy

Looks like Afib the asshat has reared his exceptionally ugly head around here again.

I'm supporting Paystar, not because their computers are great, but it will open the doors for other great computer manufacturers.

I adore Mac hardware BUT I value my eyesight. My eyes go screwy with these all-gloss screens. I must have a matte screen, so if Apple refuses to offer matte screens to the 40% of their customers who prefer matte, then I'm hoping Paystar forces open the doors for more competition. Apple is getting too big for its boots when it thinks that it's choices are the only way for all its customers.

Feb 20, 09 - 08:37 pm Comment from: Ampar

ken1w has an interesting idea but it's not practical. IP should be protected under the law and Afib is an infected genital wart seeking attention. Don't feed the wart.

Feb 20, 09 - 08:41 pm Comment from: Ampar

R makes a good point. Apple should offer non-glossy options. We can and do complain. I'm surprised that MDN doesn't offer that link.

Feb 20, 09 - 08:43 pm Comment from: Ampar

And as much as pains me, I believe Jobs is done with Apple.

Feb 20, 09 - 08:45 pm Comment from: Ampar

s/b And as much as it pains me . . .

Feb 20, 09 - 08:47 pm Comment from: TowerTone

"what’s at stake?"

Civilization. That's all.

Feb 20, 09 - 08:49 pm Comment from: TowerTone

...not to be confused with "what's at Steak..........and Shake?"

Feb 20, 09 - 08:50 pm Comment from: TowerTone

...but I digest...

Ampar, TowerTone - I guess Afib didn't have the stomach to sick around here.

Afib - I guess now we all know more about you

If I wanted a clone I'd buy a PC. The problem with clones is that the experience isn't the same. The extras that Sony puts on the Vaio and Dell puts on whatever they call it are different. Even Microsoft said they could dress up Vista whatever way they wanted.

By Apple controlling the hardware, they know the experience that your getting. These clone makers are only going to dilute the Mac experience. It wasn't just the blue screen of death that encouraged me to move to a Mac back 1999, I know what I'm getting.

Ken sound a fine Idea.

Hands up who likes me?
Anthony from Auckland. NZ

Feb 20, 09 - 09:47 pm Comment from: R

Apple has the right to sell what they sell. This is an attempt to legitimize the business model used by everyone else AS THE ONLY business model. It's not. Apple will win this. It will be a bump in the road. And it will be good to see whose deep pockets fund this.

Oh, and the other me who's not me is right: Apple should do what I want.

sdggf

MDN has banned any comments about "annoying SUDDENLY APPEARING ADS" and stops any poster who complains.

Feb 20, 09 - 10:08 pm Comment from: alansky

Time will tell whether Apple has lost its way or, to say it differently, has grown too big for its britches. The glossy screens, as well as the elimination of firewire from the new aluminum MacBook, has caused many loyal Apple supporters to doubt the soundness of Apple's judgment. Nobody's perfect and nothing lasts forever.

Apple has no choice but to vigorously defend its position against Psystar; and, personally, I hope Apple squashes Psystar like a bug. Competition is good for business, but Psystar isn't competing, it's stealing.

Why does the owner of MDN think that these annoying SUDDENLY APPEARING ADS have any meaning or value to us? I doubt any of the readers are dumb enough to click on the ad.

Feb 20, 09 - 10:12 pm Comment from: TowerTone

OK, thank you R for clearing that up.
I didn't think that was you in the first post (too leftist)
anymore than it was Buster saying it's cool to shoot the homeless on another thread. I think.

Why does the owner of MDN think that these annoying SUDDENLY APPEARING ADS have any meaning or value to us? I doubt any of the readers are dumb enough to click on the ad.

By the way, you will be blocked if you use the usual name for these ads that suddenly appear.

Hmmmmmm.....here I gotta say FUCK apple. Why can't anyone build a machine that runs windows os, MAC OS, car that runs on diesel, unleaded, h2o or air. What is apple so scared of?? If pystar wins apple sells more copies of Leopard.

Or..wait....maybe Leopard and Snowy Leopard are just a way to sell apple hardware, and thats it. If macs ship ready to run windows via bootcamp or parallels, why can't third party computers ship ready to run OSX? It's all about the dollar folks, apple locks down the Itunes store not to make cash on 99 cent songs, but to make money on the Ipod hardware.

I'm a mac fanboy as much as anyone else, but this micro-soft-esque antri apple bullshit fucking sucks. Maybe big Steve and his lawyers should spend less time worrying about second rate psuedo hardware manufactureres and more time focusing on making better hardware.....and bring the fucking appletv out of this bullshit hobby stage, what a fucking mess!!

Apple v. would-be ‘Mac cloner’ Psystar: what’s at stake?

Apple's credibility, and the ability to control their own product.

This is BIG. We know what'd happen once the genie's out.

Feb 20, 09 - 11:13 pm Comment from: breeze

Does anybody know for a fact or does anybody know of any journalists that really work for a living, that might know : Who is financially behind Pystar?

We know all the speculation and theory, but wouldn't it be curious to know, how a non name, no history company like Pystar can afford this battle???

Maybe the Apple mongering journalists could earn their keep and give us some real investigative reporting....?

Look guys if you don't like the pop-under ads just use Pith Helmet.It only costs about $10 and you get a virtually pristine page.

As for MDN's editorial tactics it goes a lot further than mere criticism about their advertising policies. And I'm not going into any more details because I don't feel like being deleted (again).

Feb 21, 09 - 12:39 am Comment from: ken1w

@ Jeff

> Why can't anyone build a machine that runs windows os, MAC OS, car that runs on diesel, unleaded, h2o or air. What is apple so scared of?

Why? Because Apple's business model is based on selling hardware, whether that's Macs, iPods, or iPhones. Apple creates great software in order to sell the hardware. If Apple decides to changes its business model to profit mostly from selling software (like Microsoft), they would not be selling Mac OS X for $129 with no copy protection. Until that happens (Apple becomes a software company), there is no way in hell Apple is going to give up the key differentiator between Apple computers and computers from EVERY other PC maker. Mac OS X is what allows to Apple to sell Macs at a good profit margin and compete based on quality and desirability, instead of compete based on low price and volume sales, because no one else can legally sell a computer that runs Mac OS X.

Apple has every right to protect this key advantage that they have worked hard to create.

Feb 21, 09 - 04:15 am Comment from: almux

Let Apple put some PA Semi chip into their next generations of Mac, and, within a few years "obsolete" boxes won't play new versions of OSX's anymore!
Bye bye hackers!!!!

All what Apple needed, from the very beginning of the Intel era, was a simple ROM chip with "© Apple Inc." burned into it.

Have OS X check for that chip at various locations throughout the OS, and change the checks in each update. Aggressively defend this chip and shut down anyone who copies it, as Apple did with the Apple II and old Mac toolbox ROMs.

Not sure why OS X hasn't had a more aggressive hardware check built-in, but then Steve has always been about surprises...

Feb 21, 09 - 08:00 am Comment from: TowerTone

Hey, Jeff
Ever try to play a Wii disk in a Playstation 3?

Feb 21, 09 - 08:10 am Comment from: zek

Why can't I run any os I want on any box I want? Because a licence has two parties, and if I want a cheap computer, Apple is not interested in selling to me.

Fscksake, what is it with these bleaters and their idea that they alone define their 'rights'?

use safari!!!

If Apple wins, then it'll be even harder for apple to licence the OS to other 3rd party manufacturers in the future for non-apple computers

Feb 21, 09 - 08:48 am Comment from: Ray

The first version of OS X I ever installed ran on my PC it was called Rhapsody. Apple had to port that to Power PC's in order get OS X to run on their products. That is why the day SJ announced that Apple was working hard to to get OS X to run Intel's I l'd-fmao.
By keeping OS X on Apple hardware, Apple keeps control of their customer support costs. Apple has a finite combination of hardware and that means they can document any issues accurately.
Go to any PC parts store and look around. Note how many video card boxes have the Nvidia logo on them. Then look to see how many of those are actual Nvidia cards made by Nvidia itself.
The rule Apple should make is simple. You make a clone, you can have OS X but you own the customer service problems for your cheap hardware and the OS X installation on said cheap hardware.

Just my $0.02

Here is a solution

Ken1w's solution wouldn't stop people from pirating OSX though.

Feb 21, 09 - 02:08 pm Comment from: YoYo

Psystar is very interesting case, they might win or at least start something, here is why.

There are two computers a PC and a Mac, in both you can install and run any operating system, but the other computer maker won't allow their OS to be installed in the other, the hardware, as the OS sees it, looks identical. How does that make Apple look like? Then remember that anyone can go to a store and buy OSX and install it in their PC.

After attending a meeting last week, in one point I realized we were talking about identical situation, and the lawyer's recommendation was: "Don't push your luck on this one". I should have brought Apple, damn, but the big bosses were there too.

Maybe Apple is just waiting for Dell to be worth 1b$, then Steve will just write a personal check and buy them out and turn them to hmmm, eh...Apple with matte screens and black plastic cases.

Feb 21, 09 - 05:01 pm Comment from: ken1w

@ Name

> Ken1w's solution wouldn't stop people from pirating OSX though.

It's not about pirating, it's about licensing. Apple does not even put copy protecting on the Mac OS X installation disc. There is no cumbersome "activation" process to prove you own a a legit copy.

Apple has not gone after individuals who install Mac OS X on their own generic hardware. However, Apple will go after any business who profits from selling a PC with Mac OS X pre-installed illegally. If they do not, more and more business will spring up to do the same thing, and that will hurt Apple's business. Apple created Mac OS X for use on Macintosh computers, as a way to differentiate Macs from the competition's computers. They have every right define how Mac OS X is used.

Feb 21, 09 - 07:31 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

Psystar has not-a-chance. I am so incredibly bored with speculation on this case. I don't care what latest bull Psystar pulled to counter sue. They have not-a-chance. This suit is as good as over. So a good hearty Y A W N .

Feb 22, 09 - 09:00 am Comment from: KingMel

MDN has to pay for this site and the people who run it. It isn't free. How many of you have used the MDN links to purchase stuff? That gives a small amount back to MDN. Would you rather this be a fee-based site? Or do you really believe that most of the ad whiners on this site would voluntarily pony up a few bucks? Didn't think so. It doesn't work anywhere else, either.

Don't get me wrong. I hate the ads. The question is, do a sufficient number of us hate the ads enough to effect change? Enough to support a new revenue stream?

@KingMel

I use firefox with the Adblock Plus plugin installed. It stops adds and popups from loading on every site I visit. Adblock plus is also available for Safari.

This wouldn't be necessary if the Ads didn't take more time to load than anything else on the site.

"Apple created Mac OS X for use on Macintosh computers"

Firstly Apple did not "Create" Mac OS X. They re-used another OS, most of which is open source, so is freely available to anyone who wants it. What they did is write a GUI and some applications to sit on top of someone else's OS. The OS is designed to run on machines meeting an open spec which is why it is so easy to make it work on an unmodified PC.

We'd all be getting pretty pissed off if someone put some lipstick on Linux and tried to pass it off as their own "new" OS, but what's happening here with Apple and BSD.

Second Apple sells the OS as a full version, those who say it's an upgrade are just ignorant. That appears nowhere in the licensing agreement or the marketing materials.

Third, Apple uses the awkward construction "Apple Labelled Computer" in the agreement. Why? Because there are no "Apple Manufactured Computers" There are computers manufactured by the likes of Asus to designs and specs provided by Apple, but no actual "Apple Manufactured Computers".

So what is an Apple Labelled Computer? Apparently an computer made by Asus but with an Apple logo on it qualifies. So why shouldn't a machine made by Dell with an Apple sticker on it qualify too?

Apple could tighten up the EULA to say "Mac OS X can only be used on machines sold by Apple". That's the equivalent of Chevrolet putting on a box of brake pads, "These Brake Pads can only be used in Chevys" or on the Chevy "This Chevy can only be used with genuine GM oil, oil filters and replacement parts, and must be filled with gas from Chevy approved gas stations" A quick look at the history of consumer protection law shows that that's illegal both for operating systems and for cars.

So right now Apple is relying on the threat of litigation to intimidate people. If this actually does end up in court, the EULA will be torn up.

Feb 22, 09 - 10:23 am Comment from: derekcurrie

"So right now Apple is relying on the threat of litigation to intimidate people. If this actually does end up in court, the EULA will be torn up."

Baloney. The EULA stands as is. Beats me why anyone would think Mac OS X is public property to be used on any machine. Vacant perspective. Useless arguments about a DONE subject.

Feb 22, 09 - 10:52 am Comment from: derekcurrie

simply sez: "Firstly Apple did not "Create" Mac OS X."

I like most of your post, but this sentence is very poor. Darwin is the OS that is Open Source that ANYONE can use. It is the base CLI OS upon which Mac OS X is built. NeXT 'created' most of Darwin in NeXTStep and OpenStep. It is Open Source because it is based on both FreeBSD and OpenBSD, and therefore must itself remain Open Source. What NeXT innovated most was the kernel, which was also an Open Source project.

If Psystar had simply put Darwin into their boxes, who would care? No one.

What Psystar did was abscond with THE REST of Mac OS X, which Apple CREATED, which Apple OWN, which NO ONE CAN STEAL, and put that into their boxes as well.

Psystar will FRY for their arrogant attitude and their blatant robbery and misuse of Apple property. The end.

The end.

The end.

The end.

Getting the idea yet? I doubt it. How about another 10 boring articles rehashing the ridiculous!

"Psystar will FRY for their arrogant attitude and their blatant robbery and misuse of Apple property. "

Wrong, because Psystar can show they paid exactly the license fee Apple was asking for the software. They can show they broke no copyright law. They can show beyond all doubt that they they didn't steal anything. Since robbery involves the use of physical force or fear to take property, it is also beyond doubt that no robbery took place. Psystar purchased the software legally from Apple. The right to resell such software is well established.

All Apple has is the EULA.

"Getting the idea yet? "

I don't think you are. Go ask Chevy why they are forbidden by law from requiring that you use Chevy OEM brake pads with your Chevy, and why they must honor the warranty on your Chevy even if you do use 3rd party brake pads, or oil filters provided the brake pads or oil filters are not the source of the problem you have. Ask why Amdahl could legally run IBM OSes on their cloned mainframes despite IBM strenuously objecting to them doing so. Also understand the first sale doctrine.

Many similar cases have been tried, most recently Autodesk software was deemed to be sold not licensed, therefore subject to the first sale doctrine, this despite Autodesk's assertion to the contrary. The legal tide is flowing against Apple's position. That my dear naive Derek is why the EULA will be torn up.

Feb 22, 09 - 05:09 pm Comment from: ken1w

@ Simply

You are simply wrong or simply ignorant, or just trying to mislead.

> Firstly Apple did not "Create" Mac OS X. They re-used another OS...

Darwin is the Unix-derived core that provides the underlying foundation for Mac OS X. It is open source, but Apple did not just "re-use another OS"; Apple greatly enhanced the original Unix core for use as part of Mac OS X. And Darwin is open source, so Apple does not care if some other company uses it and puts their own GUI on top. But it is the Mac OS X GUI that is valuable to Apple; that is what Apple is trying to protect. If another company wanted to put their own GUI on Darwin, they might as well go with Linux. But Pystar doesn't want any of the available Linux GUI's; they want Mac OS X. That should make the value of the Mac OS X GUI obvious. Apple created it and Apple can define how it can be used, just like the producer of a movie can define when and where it can be shown.

> Second Apple sells the OS as a full version, those who say it's an upgrade are just ignorant. That appears nowhere in the licensing agreement or the marketing materials.

There is no need to call it a "full version" or an "upgrade" because the license says it can only be used on a Macintosh computer. Since all Macs come with some version of the Mac OS, a new version that is sold in a box is ALWAYS intended as an upgrade to the existing OS, even if it not so labeled.

> Third, Apple uses the awkward construction "Apple Labelled Computer" in the agreement. Why?

Why? Probably because their lawyers wanted the most generalized term for an Apple computer. Reading anything more into it is just a desperate attempt at winning this un-winnable argument.

Apple created Mac OS X for use on Macintosh computers, to provide a distinct user experience and a product competitors cannot match (without installing it illegally). Apple has every right to protect that advantage.

Feb 22, 09 - 05:31 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

Of course I'm wasting my time trying to convince *certain people* about CONTRACT LAW. But let's try yet another analogy:

Panasonic build a microwave. It uses an embedded OS.

General Electric, as is typical, clone Panasonic's microwave AND reverse engineer their OS and stick it into their clone.

Who wrote the OS? Panasonic. Who OWNS the OS? Panasonic. Does Panasonic have the right to LICENSE their embedded OS to someone else? Absolutely! Can Panasonic refuse to license their embedded OS to someone else? Of course!

So in this analogy, could Panasonic sue General Electric for STEALING their embedded OS and WIN? Absolutely.

It's that simple. Apple has NOT licensed their OS to Psystar.

What Psystar did was buy a copy of the OS that Apple own. That does NOT equal having Mac OS X licensed to them. Psystar are NOT permitted a license to use the OS unless they follow the contract specified for licensing the software. Contract conditions = EULA. Don't meet the conditions? Don't get the license.

So, did Psystar follow the contract that is required in order to license Mac OS X? Of course not.

Does Psystar have even a remote leg to stand on in court? Of course not.

Kids, go take a class in contract law (like I have) or do something to learn about what you speak about. What you will discover is that this entire discussion is nonsense. It's bye-bye Psystar and any other Mac cloner. Open and shut.

And no, I don't expect thick-heads to get a clue on the subject. But at least you read the reality of the situation, which will be borne out this coming fall, and I will get to dance around on the grave of this discussion and say 'told you so, told you so, nah nah nah nah nah' then cynically yawn at the presumption of ignorant people to invent fantasy law to fit their ignorant and wrong perspectives. Nothing new. Mourn humanity. Boohoo.

"There is no need to call it a "full version" or an "upgrade" because the license says it can only be used on a Macintosh computer. Since all Macs come with some version of the Mac OS, a new version that is sold in a box is ALWAYS intended as an upgrade to the existing OS, even if it not so labeled."

Whoa there Kenny, you're imagining things now that are not in the EULA. Imagined contract terms are not enforceable in court. Sorry.

The EULA wording specifically contemplates that your Machine may or may not have a copy of OS X on it already.

"Why? Probably because their lawyers wanted the most generalized term for an Apple computer. "

No, it's awkward because they struggled with a good definition. Apple doesn't manufacture it's own hardware, so you can't say "a computer manufactured by Apple", all Mac owners would be in violation if you did that.

Architecturally the machines are generic PCs with EFI bios, so there's nothing you can point to in the design (at least at the level OSX cares about) that makes it a "Machine designed by Apple" since the Apple core logic designs leverage standard PC reference designs and every Mac owner would be in violation.

Apple doesn't sell all Apple computers, so you "can't say a computer sold by Apple", what about Apple's sold by distributors? And if you say "a computer sold by Apple or one of it's distributors" then presumably distributors could sell clones.

So you end up with this awkward "Apple labeled computer" wording. But the real problem or workaround isn't the "Apple Labeled computer" wording. Even if Apple came up with an exact term which covered only Macs and nothing else unfortunately that term is not enforceable.

"Apple has every right to protect that advantage."

If it wants to do that, it should not sell a full version of the OS at retail.

Anyway, OS X is now available as a downloadable virtual machine for Windows or Linux machines. No-one who wants to run Mac OS X on a PC (and doesn't care about the legality of what they're doing) need obtain a Psystar or any other clone machine any more. OS X now works with whatever hardware you have. That's probably a bigger threat to Apple sales than Psystar.