Psystar continues to be stubborn

Is everyone on crack?? The reason they are doing this is to open the market up for everyone who would like the most BANG for their buck. Yes Apple may make their hardware thin and small, but then you are paying a premium price for it. Just look at the specs and price of a base price mac vs. base price psystar machine. Granted I do love Mac software, I don't see why we can't install it on the hardware WE would like. They can let Psystar sell it on the hardware, but that doesn't necessarily mean Apple will have to provide support.

If anything Apple should let Psystar do what they are doing. Not only will it give Apple a grander market share, but it may eventutally lead to the consumer buying other hardware they get more margin on (ie. ipod).

What Apple is doing would be like you buying a car and not having the ability to change out the engine if you wanted. What kind of nonsense is that?!?

You bought the software, you own it, you can resell and install it on any hardware that you can make it work on...PERIOD.

(Since you modified this does not mean they will provide support for it though....)

Psystar could be in this for a number of reasons other than simply being stubborn.

If Psystar drops their fight and Apple comes at them with more legal matter, precedence will have been established and future battles become much harder to fight - even when they are as good if not better than the current round of the fight.

If Apple loses, we can essentially force an Apple-provided version of Mac OS X for generic PC's easier than the already mounting requests. Apple could be stubborn too and continue to not release a generic installation, but they would lose many of their legal stepping stones in this absence - similar to the movie industry offering a digital version of a DVD on the disc as a way to gain better legal enforcement against DVD ripping. If you take away the legitimate need (by providing a solution - digital copy, Apple provided OS X for PC, etc.) to break other laws for compatibility reasons, people hacking these systems have less of a legal blanket to protect them.

If Apple loses, Psystar may have the ability to 1) collect their legal fees and 2) maybe even collect a few extra dollars at Apple's expense. Who knows, they may even be able to wedge their way into getting a legally issued copyright / patent / etc. for Apple's development of OS X.

Psystar on the other hand, seems to be grasping for straws or otherwise be deliberately wasting time in court with childish claims against Apple. Apple didn't register OS X with the U.S. Patent Office? I doubt Apple overlooked any of the standard registrations for anything quite like this. Nevermind the fact that Mac OS X is based on NeXT, which had its own patents and whom Apple bought out - from Steve Jobs himself.

Apple had already been challenged on "OS X" because some other company had an Operating System called "X" and Apple won because the roman number 10 (represented by X) was a legal use not restricted by the registration of the Operating System "X". (I believe officially "OS/X" versus "Mac OS X") NOTE: 2008/2009 registrations show Apple trying to register "OS X" separate from "Mac OS X", though this will be interesting to see how it pans out given the past legal issues with "OS/X")

On the front of the First Sale Doctrine, there's a great deal of debate as to whether Psystar even has a chance at relevancy under this. As a tech person with several legal classes, but not a legal degree, my interpretation of the First Sale Doctrine is limited to UN-BUNDLING software from an OEM package for individual component sale, rather than allowing the RE-BUNDLING of software.

A successful example of First Sale being implemented would be if I bought a DELL that came with Windows XP Professional. As part of the protections of First Sale, I can legally sell the copy of XP that came with the DELL, regardless of the Microsoft EULA that explicitly says I cannot, and that a person can legally buy it from me for legal use, again, regardless of the Microsoft EULA that explicitly says I cannot. I was to still understand that some shop cannot sell a custom-built PC using the DELL license, if purchased from the original DELL user, not being themselves, because it was no longer the First Sale.

My summary...

Psystar will spend a great deal of money. Apple will waste a great deal of time and money. An on-going lawsuit may jeopardize future release schedules of new products, as many companies use past legal issues to better protect their future products.

Would I like to see a legally available version of Mac OS X for non-Apple computers? Possibly. Do I want Apple to stop making computers or OS X? Of course not. It can be debated that a generic PC version of OS X could jeopardize Apple hardware sales. I agree that it -could- though I'm not convinced that it will nor that it has to. Let us compare the Chevy Avalanche to the Cadillac Escalade. They're the same vehicle with different body kits. We're talking trim, not completely different panels. A junkyard door from either will fit the other. There's usually more than $10 K difference in price. People still buy the Escalade and not everyone does so because they're ghetto and need to flaunt the Cadillac name. There's a difference in the service you get. Why buy a $1500 ThinkPad when you could buy a $500 Compaq Presario? There's a real difference. It matters to some and not to others. In the end, it all pans out. Business classes will even try to instill that what's good for the customer is always good for business. You can't limit any major decision to a single variable though.

Seriously, First sale doctrine doesn't protect the sale of pirated/copied goods.

Psystar did NOT install a store bought copy of OSX onto their machines.

Look, Endgadget did a review of one of their machines and noted the fact that the copy of Leopard that they got with the machine will NOT install onto the Psystar machine.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/30/psystar-open-computer-notes-benchmarks-and-video/

Also FWIW, I have sitting in front of me about a six inch stack of case law that I am going to read for my latest analysis. Both sides have made cogent arguments in their filings that hinge upon who is misrepresenting the case law that sets precedent in that District and who doesn't.

Please, those of you in this thread that have read the case law, write me tonight and give me some summaries. It would really help me out by giving me some background information.

IOW, I am not holding my breath. So far, Psystar is going down. Perhaps they will rally back. But when you have a firm that has misspelled its own client's name in multiple court filings and continuously screwed up the verb tense of "plead" despite having this pointed out to Psystar personally (I was standing right there when the phone call was made), hope starts to grow dim.

Stace, a service guy down here cracked up on Psystar case to fix something and it had packing peanuts shoved in it. I am curious. Are you simply a customer, or do you have a dog in this fight? I will put my cards on the table. How about you?

Simple question. How many of you have actually read all the filings in the case and the relevant case law rather than the wailing and gnashing of teeth I have seen from both sides in these comments?

I would guess none. If you claim you have, point out to me the one glaring mistake that was made in the original article. I will give you my number, I dare you to talk to me to prove you have read the material.

You haven't. 99% of the commenters are simply talking out of their asses about something they know little about except how they "feel."

Go on. Make my day.

Another problem with psystar is that they were cracking and reverse-engineering apple updates to give to their customers, in addition to reselling OS X which violates the EULA. Remember that when you buy software you are buying the license to use it, not the actual software, what apple is doing is 100% legal and is their right to protect their licenses

Stace as an owner of a pystar you should face charges as well. The mac os has been stolen so to speak and you are the purchaser of stolen goods.

I'm sick to death of people that want to bash apple and their os then go steal it and applaud others that do the same. talk about 5th grade. grow up and pay your own bills. grow a pair and admit you were wrong. This is what is wrong with this country, people like you think the u.s. and the world owes them a living.

i can't wait for apple to win then get the names of all you little cheapskate/thieves. when they come to take your little crapintosh away I'm sure you will go crying to momma.

"The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package."

You people are missing the point, and defending Apple because you're all mindless zombies.

1. Psystar has been paying Apple all along for every piece of OS X that came FREE with their PCs.

2. They sell PERSONAL COMPUTERS, which run multiple OSes.

3. They don't sell MAC CLONES. These are not sold as MAC CLONES.

4. If Apple wants to go after these people, why aren't they going after the little mom and pop fake iPhone, gPhone or whatever the hell the latest Japanese/Korean iPhone is on Engadget?

5. Anyone want to guess when the EULA kicks in? When the software is installed. So the people that are at fault are the one's that bought these things and installed OS X. Want to know why Apple isn't going after them? Because it would make them look like the RIAA.

6. They are providing a hardware configuration that ANYONE can build at home. Hell, I've done it myself. The hardware isn't proprietary... Apple does the assembly. Psystar doesn't build "proprietary hardware" either, they build assembled PCs. Psystar sells the SERVICE of finding and building the proper Leopard compliant configuration. You do the OS X install.

7. I use a Mac, I love Apple... and I'd never buy one of these Psystar pieces... but I know idiots defending on a whim when I see them. Raise your hand if you voted for Obama too?

The thing that needs to change about EULA's is when they are agreed upon. It is almost always after the point of sale. It doesn't seem right to enforce restrictions after the consumer made the purchase. I would love to see the courts rule that EULA's can only be enforced if the purchaser agreed to them at the point of sale, not after the purchase was done. It's really hard to return opened software, so that leaves the consumer little choice but to agree. How likely will software companies use EULA's if retailers are required to have the consumer read through 50 pages of license agreement and sign it at the checkout line?

I liken EULA's to homeowner associations. Sure you own the house, but you made a litany of agreements to how you will use it. You can't force someone to agree to HOA after they purchase the house**, so how is it legal to enforce EULA after the point of sale?

**When I purchased my home there was no HOA. A group of busybodies in the neighborhood wanted to create one, so I sought the advice of a lawer since I wouldn't follow their crazy restrictions. No matter what they tried to pull, I wouldn't have to follow it because I purchased the house before the HOA existed. YMMV.

EULAs that claim the software is licensed, not bought only hold water when the transaction transferring the software applies a very clear non-purchase model, like signing a lease contract. I'd bet the ability to walk into a Apple store and "buy" the OS X box off the shelf makes it a "purchase", not merely a "license" in the eyes of the law.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html

That the software is "installed" makes the situation more interesting. Perhaps they violated the license conditions, but certainly not the software copyright.