Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Asks Judge To Shutter Psystar's Clone Unit

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the say-goodnight-gracie dept.

The Courts 346

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

cancel ×

346 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's ok (-1, Troll)

pigphish (1070214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238416)

Apple did it so it can't be bad

Re:It's ok (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238444)

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

Re:It's ok (0, Flamebait)

pigphish (1070214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238546)

I never do never will

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

Re:It's ok (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238606)

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

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

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

Re:It's ok (3, Insightful)

pigphish (1070214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238732)

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

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

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

Re:It's ok (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238794)

In the end they are bad for the industry

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

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

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

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

Re:It's ok (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239266)

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

Re:It's ok (1)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239000)

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

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

Re:It's ok (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239202)

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

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

Re:It's ok (3, Insightful)

Stuart Gibson (544632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238696)

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

Re:It's ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239026)

Haha, you're such a fool.

Re:It's ok (1)

CowboyBob500 (580695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239154)

Two words - Logic Studio

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

Re:It's ok (0, Troll)

mrsquid0 (1335303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238878)

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

Smells like fags (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238424)

Well ain't Apple full of dicks.

Once again (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238454)

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

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

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

Re:Once again (3, Insightful)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238484)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Once again (2)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238598)

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

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

Re:Once again (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238844)

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

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

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

Re:Once again (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238930)

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

Re:Once again (2, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238616)

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

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

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

Re:Once again (3, Informative)

minsk (805035) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238734)

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

(not a lawyer, and all that)

Re:Once again (0, Troll)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238876)

What three words? "Apple Asks Judge"?

Re:Once again (1)

Acapulco (1289274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239048)

"legally owned copy" I think...

Re:Once again (3, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238752)

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

But...

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

Re:Once again (2, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238916)

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

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

Re:Once again (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238922)

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

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

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

Re:Once again (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239024)

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

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

Re:Once again (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239042)

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

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

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

Re:Once again (1)

beatsme (1472991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238634)

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

Re:Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238596)

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

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

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

Re:Once again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238800)

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

You mean (2, Informative)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238620)

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

Re:You mean (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238722)

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

Re:You mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238754)

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

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

Re:You mean (1)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238838)

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

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

Re:You mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238924)

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

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

Re:You mean (1)

Traa (158207) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238894)

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

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

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

Re:Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238698)

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

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

Re:Once again (5, Insightful)

Stevecrox (962208) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238704)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Once again (2, Interesting)

Stuart Gibson (544632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238738)

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

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

Re:Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238790)

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

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

HAH!!!

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

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

Re:Once again (2, Funny)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239028)

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

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

Re:Once again (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239184)

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

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

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

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

Re:Once again (3, Interesting)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238868)

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

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

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

Re:Once again (2, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238950)

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

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

Re:Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239070)

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

Re:Once again (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238994)

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

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

Re:Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239006)

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong wrong and wrong again.

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

A few reasons (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239044)

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

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

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

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

Re:Once again (1)

theurge14 (820596) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239088)

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

Apple is very special (1)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239170)

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

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

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

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

In short: fsck / chkdsk Apple! :-)

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

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

Re:Apple is very special (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239280)

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

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

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

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

Re:Once again (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239316)

Microsoft does in the form of badges or certification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Once again (4, Informative)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238806)

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

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

Re:Once again (2, Informative)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238954)

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

Re:Once again (3, Interesting)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239012)

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

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

Re:Once again (1)

derrickh (157646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238890)

GeOS on the Commodore 64 says 'Hi'

D

Re:Once again (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238978)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Once again (2, Informative)

Acapulco (1289274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239086)

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

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

Re:Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239158)

"No more unlocked computers, no more OSS."

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

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

Re:Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30239216)

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

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

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

Re:Once again (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239244)

Apple sells systems.

They also sell operating systems without hardware.

Shutter ? (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238456)

n/t

Re:Shutter ? (1)

Necroman (61604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238658)

Shutter:

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

duh.

I was thinking about buying a Mac... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238458)

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

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

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

The way I see it (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238530)

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238610)

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

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

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

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

Re:The way I see it (4, Insightful)

AnotherShep (599837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238648)

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

Re:The way I see it (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238662)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1, Informative)

Acapulco (1289274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239122)

To use a car analogy for once...

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239312)

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

pigphish (1070214) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238750)

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238900)

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

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

Re:The way I see it (2, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238926)

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

/Mikael

Bullshit (2, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238920)

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

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

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

Re:The way I see it (4, Interesting)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238940)

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

Re:The way I see it (2, Informative)

_merlin (160982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239288)

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

Re:The way I see it (2, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239222)

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

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239234)

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

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1, Insightful)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238664)

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238712)

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

AnotherShep (599837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238748)

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

Stuart Gibson (544632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238784)

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

Re:The way I see it (5, Insightful)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238970)

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

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239066)

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238932)

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

Re:The way I see it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238942)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:The way I see it (4, Insightful)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238948)

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

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

Re:The way I see it (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239300)

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

Re:The way I see it (2, Interesting)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238886)

So was it wrong when Compaq cloned the IBM BIOS?

Re:The way I see it (3, Informative)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239230)

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

Re:The way I see it (2, Insightful)

AnotherShep (599837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239276)

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

Psystar f-ed it up (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238670)

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

Re:Psystar f-ed it up (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238834)

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

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

Re:Psystar f-ed it up (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238984)

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

Re:Psystar f-ed it up (1)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239310)

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

Re:Psystar f-ed it up (4, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239130)

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

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

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

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

Duh (3, Insightful)

Steeltoe (98226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30239286)

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

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

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

Why do companies keep doing this? (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 4 years ago | (#30238840)

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

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

Why do hobbyists insist of violating Apples IP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30238910)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?