Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/20/09
11/20/09
That's like saying an iTunes update broke support of the Palm Pre.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/17/09
11/15/09
Someone explain this to me.
Why does Apple get to decide how you use their product, while the telecommunications providers get everyone up in their business? What's preventing internet providers from '"licensing" the use of their network, say preventing bittorrent traffic. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself and find another provider. How is that any different from the group of people that say, "If you want to use OS X, buy a Mac."? Why does Apple get a pass?
Apple apologists, what say ye? #apple
11/15/09
Does asking this question make me an Apple apologist or an intellectual property apologist?
11/15/09
Net neutrality is quite different because while they own the pipes, they don't own the contents in the pipe. The closest would be a toll road, and if the toll collected changed based 0n occupant and speed limit changed on vehicle type. #apple
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
The way I typically use to explain it is this: it's be like the water company charging you more per gallon for water you use for cooking than water you use to shower. #apple
11/15/09
Your basis for Apple to do what they want is ownership.
Telecoms own the fucking pipe. Why don't they get to decide how you use it?
Using the example of a toll road to explain net neutrality works well-- in support of network neutrality. Last time I used a toll road (yesterday), they charged vehicles per axle. Taking it even further, they also have the ability to deny use of a toll road to a vehicle that they feel is unfit to travel it.
So, you don't support net neutrality, and you support the DMCA. Correct? #apple
11/15/09
And, you would be an intellectual property apologist.
I think copyright, trademark, and patent laws in this country are royally screwed. Consequently, I'm a staunch supporter of open source. I also despise the DMCA. #apple
11/15/09
Strangely enough(well not so strangely), people are cool with that.
Internet providers regularly charge for different levels of service, particularly with regard to capacity. #apple
11/15/09
It makes no sense for people to waste their breath about how wonderful Apple (aka fanboy worshipping) is when Apple's primary goal is to separate people from their pocketbook.
I don't find greed to be a redeeming quality, but that's me. #apple
11/19/09
We wouldn't have the computers we have today (including Apple's Macs) if IBM did to cloners what Apple is doing to Pystar.
I could be wrong, but if I remember right PCs used to be simply called IBMs back in the late 80s. And what about AMD? They came on to the scene later than Intel, building chips based on the same architecture, and now we have a healthy competition between the two that drives improvements forward. Apple doesn't want that, they want the monopoly.
My 2 cents.
#tips
11/15/09
They sell Mac Clones that work now. And from there it's a fight to keep it working. Waste of money.
11/14/09
Hey if you don't like a law, change it. That's what they are attempting to do. I think everything you buy should be yours to hack and if you want to pay somebody to hack it for you, that's your right too. This is not law, just my personal moral judgment on the issue. You could say I'm wrong, but that's just, like, your opinion, man. #apple
11/14/09
Imagine buying Windows for $49 (OEM), unlocking Ultimate, and reselling for $69... that would be legal if Psystar had it's way. #apple
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
Excerpt from court documents from the case from the website. It's in English and everything. #apple
11/14/09
11/14/09
They created a single image on a Mac mini then mass copied that image onto multiple PCs == pirated software. #apple
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
I suspect, to an extent, that Apple doesn't care too terribly much about end users hackintoshing their computers as their lawyers do not aggressively send out Cease and Desist notices to websites telling people how to hackintosh their computer. I think they realize that people who create hackintoshes on their own already own or are likely to purchase Macs in the future, while those who purchase pre-made hackintoshes won''t. #apple
11/14/09
#apple
11/14/09
I agree with your argument that nothing will actually be done. I just stand in opposition to those who create hackintoshes and defend the legality of it when the legality is ill defined at best and about to get a whole lot more dubious.
#apple
11/14/09
11/14/09
Edit: I forgot to add why I brought up the DMCA. In order to copy some materials that are privately owned by the end-user, DRM and other protective measures are often stripped or closed source, proprietary software have to be modified/hacked in order to be copied or used outside of their original intent. Accordingly, they violate the DMCA and are prosecutable, regardless of fair use.
11/14/09
It mostly falls under the DMCA section where it states "Psystar has violated the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection barrier and trafficking devices designed for circumvention." To me this means the court has determined the measures Apple takes to keep you from installing OSX on non-Apple computers is legal and circumventing the measures violates the DMCA. As you have to install something on any non-Apple computer to get around those measures incorporated into OSX, a hackintosh could be deemed as a violation of the DMCA.
Even with that, I'd agree that Apple isn't going to come after individuals. I find it highly improbable that hackintoshes will become a large enough market for Apple to go after it beyond the software update related means. #apple
11/14/09
#apple
11/14/09
In fact, from what I see, the only time the judgement talks about licenses is in discussion about another case in which more copies were made than licenses obtained. #apple
11/14/09
11/14/09
Legal mumbo jumbo from EULA:
-''By using the Apple software, you are agreeing to be bound by the terms of this license, unless you return the Apple Software in accordance with Apple's return policy. [...] If you do not agree to the terms of the license [...] for Apple Software included with your purchase of hardware, you must return the entire hardware/software package in order to obtain a refund.''
In keeping the Mac Mini, they agreed that they would follow the EULA presented by Apple.
-''The Apple software (including Boot ROM code), any third party software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data accompanying this
License whether preinstalled on Apple-branded hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and/or Apple’s licensors retain ownership of the Apple Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.''
They are thusly agreeing that it is a licensed piece of software and not owned. Accordingly, they must follow the EULA.
-''You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.''
They violated this point in two points and, as such, violated the copyright of the software. First, they installed it on non-Apple hardware (I'll get to why this is important shortly). Secondly, they violated the licensing agreement and installed a single use copy on multiple computers, making all but the original Mac Mini illegal, pirated copies.
-''You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code and other Apple firmware that is embedded or otherwise contained in Applebranded hardware) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original. Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-branded hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute
the Apple Boot ROM code or firmware, or any portions thereof.''
Again, they violated this in two points. Firstly, they made multiple copies of the software to install on multiple machines when only one copy is covered by fair use. Secondly, they violated the DMCA and the licensing agreement by not using a perfect copy of the boot ROM, but one with a modified kernel.
-''You may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute, or sublicense the Apple Software. Subject to the restrictions set
forth below, you may, however make a one-time permanent transfer of all of your license rights to the Apple Software (in its original form as provided by Apple) to another party''
They violated this explicitly, thus violating copyright law and the agreement set forth by the EULA.
-''You may not and you agree not to, [...] copy (except as expressly permitted by this License), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any services provided by the Apple Software, or any part thereof (except as and only to the extent any foregoing restriction is prohibited by applicable law or to the extent as may be permitted by licensing terms governing use of Open-Sourced Components).''
They violated both the DMCA and the EULA in order to make the software run on non-Apple machines.
Components from the brief regarding the EULA and DMCA:
-''Mac OS X on both Mac computers and the DVD are covered by software license
agreements that provided that the software is "licensed, not sold to [the user] by Apple Inc.
("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License" (Chung Exh. 26 at ¶ 1). Apple’s license
agreements restricted the use of Mac OS X to Apple computers, and specifically prohibited
customers from installing the operating system on non-Apple computers.''
-''Apple has obtained three copyright registrations for Mac OS X. It has used lock-and-key technological measures to prevent Mac OS X from operating on non-Apple computers. This involved the use of a "kernel" extension, which is software that is executed and becomes part of the operating system on an Apple computer.''
-''Psystar copied Mac OS X from the Mac mini onto a non-Apple computer. This non-Apple computer was used as an "imaging station." Once on the imaging station, Mac OS X was modified. Psystar then replaced the Mac OS X "bootloader." The bootloader runs when a computer first comes on and locates and loads portions of the operating system into random access memory. Without a bootloader, Mac OS X would not operate. Psystar also disabled and/or removed Mac OS X kernel extension files and replaced them with other kernel extension files. Psystar’s modifications enabled Mac OS X to run on non-Apple computers. The modified copy became the "master copy" that was used for mass reproduction and installation onto other Psystar computers.''
Apple's lawyers were smart and dynamically tied the case to both the EULA and the DMCA, thus giving the reading of their EULA a stronger legal precedent in any future cases.
Sorry for the obscenely long post. #apple
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
If we focus on the components you mention from the brief:
The part about how the software is licensed not sold is in the statement portion of the brief, not the analysis. The part where it could come up in analysis and be an issue is with fair use. However, that argument (whether Psystar is owner or licensee) is not pursued because Psystar was not distribution legally manufactured copies.
The kernel extension part deals with the violation of the DMCA by circumventing the measures Apple has taken to protect their copyrighted material.
The part about the imaging station deals with how Psystar manufactured their illegal copies.
What I'm saying is, this judgement specifically deals with copyright infringement and based on what I have read (including your thorough post) by no means indicates the judge rules you must abide by the EULA (as claimed by the Groklaw author).
Because Psystar violated Apple's copyrights and used illegally manufactured copies, the EULA has no bearing on their individual machines because those machines are not using a retail copy that is covered by the EULA.
Now they did violate the EULA of the Mac Mini, but that specific issue is not addressed in this judgement. #apple
11/14/09
I do agree with one point you explicitly made, that being ''by no means indicates the judge rules you must abide by the EULA," however I disagree in that I recognize that the ruling adds credence to the enforcement of EULAs due to the intrinsic linking of the EULA and the DMCA in this case. Apple pursued the violation of copyright through their EULA and, as such, linked the EULA with the outcome. It adds credence to EULAs in future cases, but does not explicitly state that EULAs must always be explicitly upheld. When a EULA is found to violate the fair use doctrine or in cases of bankruptcy, it can be negated, however, I think that by linking the two, Apple is building a stronger ground for future prosecution based upon violation of the EULA.
Edit: I forgot to add, thanks for reading my entire statement. I probably would have just skimmed it as, looking back, it was particularly long-winded.
11/14/09
11/14/09
11/14/09
They could of sold hackintosh compatible computers with instructions that send you to the store to buy OS X. IMO they had no regard for the law.
They might as well of sold hacked copies of windows 7 and other illegal software on their site. I mean if your gonna do something illegal just go all the way. #apple
11/14/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
Having said that, I don't think anyone expects the tablet to run the full Mac OS X, do they? #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
Being able to play VLC on the tablet would be MOST welcome. Pretty freakin' please. #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
11/12/09
11/11/09
It seems like this is just another case of "piracy" to some degree, and while we all take liberties on this subject, I am not certain it is a "dick move" by the company who "owns" (ignoring the open source content) the software to protect their product.
I will shut up now. My apologies, again. #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
I can see why Apple might want to stop this kind of thing, but I can see more clearly how it's a dick move for them to go out of their way to do it. #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
That being said, the Windows 7 upgrade pricing goes from $119 to $219. Those are the prices that should be compared against Snow Leopard's upgrade pricing of $29 #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
Seriously, I agree, that's why it's a dick move - while I understand the argument of Apple not wanting to support Hackintoshing, I find their active attempt to squish it less than impressive. (And doomed to failure.) Apple attracts a lot of tech geeks with their shiny shiny things, and tech geeks are always going to futz around with limits once they tire of what they can do with the basic, supplied product.
But that IS Apple, really. "You can do whatever you want with our stuff, darlings!" is not exactly their tagline.
11/11/09
11/11/09
Which is irony when you look back at Woz and Phreaking... #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
11/11/09
If you were to install Windows 7 upgrade without having purchased XP or Vista OEM at the same time you purchased your Mac you would be breaking the law. They may not waterboard you, but lots of corporations get handed million dollar fines for breaking software licensing agreements. #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
11/11/09
Would your comments be any different in light of this? #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
11/11/09
I own a Macbook Pro, a copy of Leopard and a copy of Snow Leopard. Who in the hell are they to try to PREVENT me from doing what I want with my own (LEGAL) software? They don't have to condone, support, or even have an opinion on it, but they certainly don't have to take steps to kill it. It's ridiculous.
And for the record - my Hackintosh woops my MBP's ass. #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
a non-negotiable contract between unequal parties. US courts have both upheld and shot down individual contracts of this sort in differing cases, but have not ruled on EULAs themselves. US courts tend to favor commercial organizations over individuals, though, so your appeal to authority may be right. #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
That analogy makes sense. #1062hackintosh
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/11/09
11/08/09