Apple Vs. Psystar ( Apple Won )

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

thats not a fact, thats an opinion, your opinion. same thing can be said about a person that buys ANY OEM Prebuilt, Apple, Dell, or HP.

Do i like my Mac, yes i do, but i also like my Win 7 Box and my Ubuntu Box. heck i use my Win 7 box more then my Mac, do i think i overpaid for my Mac, No i feel it was well worth it. and ill cut the Fanboy snake off because it seems your heading down that route. i have purchased and received more Microsoft things then anything else, AND work as a Microsoft Partner. but im assuming your mentality of just because i have a mac, im a Apple fanboy despite it being the FAR minority in my house

but its glad to know how you feel about me spending my own money

If people are stupid enough to waste money, that is their loss, not mine, but the freedom to point that fact out is something I will retain and that no amount of moaning from you will overturn :)

Edited November 16, 2009 by Hell-In-A-Handbasket

[the evn show]

Why is it still illegal, there is no law that says you cannot use a customised bootloader to load an OS

Yes there is and this ruling supports that (specifically, adding including a boot loader to Mac OS X counts as creating a derivative work something Apple has an exclusive right to). Fortunately we can ignore that because running Mac OS X on a non-mac computer is forbidden by the EULA which this ruling upholads.

Psystar argues that Apple cannot extend its exclusive rights to control the computers on which Apple’s customers run Mac OS X.

Psystar’s antitrust allegations were dismissed…“Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so”

[aussiefloyd_fan]

seems they are still selling systems.. eh? I wonder how long this will go on....

[Subject Delta]

Yes there is and this ruling supports that (specifically, adding including a boot loader to Mac OS X counts as creating a derivative work something Apple has an exclusive right to). Fortunately we can ignore that because running Mac OS X on a non-mac computer is forbidden by the EULA which this ruling upholads.

That makes no sense, Apple has an exclusive right to design a bootloader? :/

[drshdw]

That makes no sense, Apple has an exclusive right to design a bootloader? :/

It is their bootloader for their operating system..

[the evn show]

That makes no sense, Apple has an exclusive right to design a bootloader? :/

No, but they do get to control what hardware you're allowed to run Mac OS X on: running it on a non-mac creates to infringing copies (at least). The court specifically addressed modifications to mac os x including changing the boot loader.

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’s modifications enabled Mac OS X to run on non-Apple computers…Apple also alleges that every time Psystar turned on Psystar computers running Mac OS X then another copy was made in random access memory.

Psystar infringed Apple’s exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X. It did this by replacing original files in Mac OS X with unauthorized software files. Specifically…replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar’s computers;

Psystar contends that this did not amount to creating a derivative work, because Apple’s source code, object code, or kernel extensions were not modified. This argument is unavailing.

In fact, if the bootloader and kernel extensions added by Psystar were removed, then the operating system would not work on Psystar’s computers. The inclusion of the copyrighted Mac OS X with the above-described additions and modifications makes Psystar’s product an infringing, derivative work.

Apple points to decisions showing that such deletions, modifications, and additions to software result in an infringing derivative work. In sum, Psystar has violated Apple’s exclusive…right to create derivative works.

So yes, installing Mac OS X on a new computer, adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader is copyright infringement.

Worse, this isn't wacked-out American-only DMCA stuff either. Any Berne convention signatory would have similar rules in their copyright statutes. It's not unreasonable to expect that Apple would be able to find favourable rulings in more-or-less any country that has electricity.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

i wonder how long till Neowin changes the [OSX86] post rules since the judge the limitation of OSX on Apple Hardware Legal and in the rights of apple

So yes, installing Mac OS X on a new computer, adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader is copyright infringement.

Worse, this isn't wacked-out American-only DMCA stuff either. Any Berne convention signatory would have similar rules in their copyright statutes. It's not unreasonable to expect that Apple would be able to find favourable rulings in more-or-less any country that has electricity.

[the evn show]

i wonder how long till Neowin changes the [OSX86] post rules since the judge the limitation of OSX on Apple Hardware Legal and in the rights of apple

My understanding of the Neowin rules wrt. copyright infringement is that that they're more "don't get us in trouble" not "don't do things that are illegal". It's sort of like the tolerance for discussing things like talking about ripping movies you own (not legal for Americans) and the ban on discussing how to download top-40 music from services like the Napster (legal for Canadians). In a more abstract sense: Neowin tolerates criticism of Islam (illegal for Saudis) and discussion of Nazi ideals (illegal for Germans) but forbids homophobic comments (legal for most people).

I know there have been involved discussions about the Neowin's copyright policies and how they relate to international law in private forums, however I'm not able to comment on them.

Given that bundling provisions of Apple's EULAs have been known to be enforcable for years, and that the "macs only" provision of Apple's EULA was ruled on ages ago: I don't expect to see a policy change. This is just one of those things that the forum administrators don't consider legality to be an important issue for reasons of their own choosing.

[CentralDogma]

So yes, installing Mac OS X on a new computer, adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader is copyright infringement.

Worse, this isn't wacked-out American-only DMCA stuff either. Any Berne convention signatory would have similar rules in their copyright statutes. It's not unreasonable to expect that Apple would be able to find favourable rulings in more-or-less any country that has electricity.

The section of the DMCA concerning anti-circumvention is very much a grey area of the law.

[the evn show]

The section of the DMCA concerning anti-circumvention is very much a grey area of the law.

Then it sure is a good thing the court clarified Apples DMCA claims in this one and also that my posts thus far have had almost nothing at all Apple's anti-circumvention claims.

All of the above is boring old copyright stuff.

[CentralDogma]

Then it sure is a good thing the court clarified Apples DMCA claims in this one and also that my posts thus far have had almost nothing at all Apple's anti-circumvention claims.

All of the above is boring old copyright stuff.

"Adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader" is only illegal under that provision of the DMCA.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

according to the post that said Neowin allows OSX86 is

Discussion of OS X on non-Apple hardware is allowed on Neowin. The amendment to the rules was conclusively made after much discussion among our staff. The primary reasoning behind this is a 1984 Federal Court ruling specifically makes it illegal for a company to force their users to install the OS on specific hardware. Which is ultimately the reason we're now allowing this discussion.

and this rulling states that Apple can limit OSX to Only Apple Hardware

My understanding of the Neowin rules wrt. copyright infringement is that that they're more "don't get us in trouble" not "don't do things that are illegal".

[the evn show]

"Adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader" is only illegal under that provision of the DMCA.

You didn't read the ruling and I'm willing to put cash on the fact that you've never read the DMCA, Berne Convention, or Title 17. I'd argue that you no idea what the heck you're talking about. To support that position I'll point out the following:

• Specific to this case, Apple's DMCA claims are addressed on page 13, line 4 to page 15 line 2 and have nothing to do with the boot loader and adding kernel extensions save for copy protection circumvention concerns.
  
• Copyright infringement claims are addressed on their own. In the case of boot loaders and kernel extensions you can find them detailed in the section that covers Apple's Right to Create Derivative Works on page 8, line 27 through page 10, line 9.
  

Even without the DMCA you wouldn't be legally able to run Mac OS X on a non-mac. This is one of those rulings that goes to 11, strip away one and you'd still be at 10 - which is pretty damn loud.

and this rulling states that Apple can limit OSX to Only Apple Hardware

That was actually sorted 10 years ago and I've made the case before the administrators in the past. This ruling doesn't actually state anything new with respect to Apple, it just restates a ruling made a year ago, almost to the day.

That ruling cites cases that were done-deals decades ago. This ruling doesn't say anything we didn't already know, but it does make it a lot easier for people with an interest in copyright law to argue the points to people less well versed in the topic.

To the best of my knowledge the legality of an issue is irrelevant to Neowin's staff: they're primarily concerned with what will land Neowin in hot water. Calling the profit mohammed a pedophile child molester is illegal in some places but Neowin doesn't give a damn: you're still allowed to do that here. Installing Mac OS X on a non-mac is illegal almost everywhere but again, neowin doesn't give a damn. I can't explain their reasoning any better than I have:

"The rules are the rules because they're the rules". Sometimes the rules line up with things that aren't legal, sometimes they don't. When you're playing in somebody elses back yard you're stuck following their rules.

I've reported this thread in the hopes that staff/admin will clarify. It should go without saying that people with MVC or Subscriber2 badges (I don't know what I show up as) aren't speaking on behalf of the staff. I'm just stating the rules as best I understand them.

Edited November 17, 2009 by evn.

[CentralDogma]

You didn't read the ruling and I'm willing to put cash on the fact that you've never read the DMCA, Berne Convention, or Title 17. I'd argue that you no idea what the heck you're talking about.

Sorry, you just lost a bet.

Specific to this case, Apple's DMCA claims are addressed on page 13, line 4 to page 15 line 2 and have nothing to do with the boot loader and adding kernel extensions.

I wasn't talking about the case. You wrote:

"So yes, installing Mac OS X on a new computer, adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader is copyright infringement."The only law pertaining to that is Title I of the DMCA. Which is a gray area in the US legal system. DMCA claim starts page 13 line 4.

Copyright infringement claims are addressed on their own. In the case of boot loaders and kernel extensions you can find them in the section that covers Apple's Right to Create Derivative Works on page 8, line 27 through page 10, line 9.

What? What does that have to do with what I wrote. If you're saying "adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader is copyright infringement" because of that law(title 17 section 106(2)), you are way off base. That requires to to make a copy/redistribute. So you would have to redistribute not only the patched file, but also the entire disk image. Unless the boot loader/ kernel ext. are derived from proprietary OS X code, then you have a point.

[Pam14160]

I love a good debate, and this has proven to be an excellent one. Learned a lot from both sides of the aisle. Albeit as long as there are geeks there will always be debates on who is right or wrong (regardless of the law) about the issue of Apple, and it use on computers other then those which Apple builds.

[Brian M. Veteran]

I've reported this thread in the hopes that staff/admin will clarify. It should go without saying that people with MVC or Subscriber2 badges (I don't know what I show up as) aren't speaking on behalf of the staff. I'm just stating the rules as best I understand them.

As far as our rules go, they remain unchanged. We allow the discussion of OSX on non-Apple hardware, but we do not allow the discussion of illegally obtained copies of OSX (i.e. warez).

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=639781

[the evn show]

"So yes, installing Mac OS X on a new computer, adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader is copyright infringement."The only law pertaining to that is Title I of the DMCA. Which is a gray area in the US legal system. DMCA claim starts page 13 line 4.

Explain exactly how the DMCA is a grey area: this court had no issue ruling on Apple's DMCA claims.

I'll quote the judge.

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a derivative work as:

<snip>

Psystar infringed Apple’s exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X. It did

this by replacing original files in Mac OS X with unauthorized software files. Specifically…replacing the Mac OS X bootloader…disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files…and adding non-Apple kernel extensions.

Psystar contends that this did not amount to creating a derivative work, because Apple’s source code, object code, or kernel extensions were not modified.

In sum, Psystar has violated Apple’s exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works. Accordingly, Apple’s motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement must be granted.

All of the above is boring old copyright act stuff, no mention of the DMCA is made when deciding this issue. All of the cited cases that guided the decision were title 17 decisions. All but one of them predated the DMCA by more than a decade and the one that didn't (Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs. v. Grace Consulting, Inc.) makes no DMCA claims.

If you're saying "adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader is copyright infringement" because of that law(title 17 section 106(2)), you are way off base. That requires to to make a copy/redistribute.

The court ruled otherwise. Distribution is 106-3, derivative works is 101-6 - they are two separate protections and this ruling supports that.

Cite something to back your assertion.

So you would have to redistribute not only the patched file, but also the entire disk image. Unless the boot loader/ kernel ext. are derived from proprietary OS X code, then you have a point.

The court ruling disagrees with you.

Can you cite anything in the ruling that supports your claims?

Edited November 17, 2009 by evn.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

HAHAHA I read the topic as 'Aliens Vs Predator' (Aliens won)

...

anyway figured u all wanted to know that!

[CentralDogma]

The court ruled otherwise. Distribution is 106-3, derivative works is 101-6 - they are two separate protections and this ruling supports that.

That's because Psystar was not just "adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader" they were distrubuting, in total, OS X propriatary code( the entire OS) with some minor modifications. That is copyright infringement, I'm not debating that. I'm debating the fact that an end user, who buy an OS X license and modifies some files is in violation of the law. That's DMCA teritorry not Title 17 because there is no copying going on.

DMCA uses some vague language in that section, that's why it's a gray area. To quote Gail Thackeray, "the legal system is a living organism". There's a good chance that section of the DMCA is going to be reviewed by both congress and the courts.

[Qumahlin]

This isn't a blow to the Hackintosh community...Apple barely tries to stop the community in general, this is a blow to companies that want to sell these knock offs and hope that customers are too stupid to understand the difference.

Imagine how an average consumer will feel when they buy one of these machines, run an OS update and find out it hosed their computer...they then call Apple support...you know the companies whose info and logo is all over the OS they are using only to find out Apple support won't even talk to them. That customer is then going to be just as angry at Apple as they are at Psystar, because sadly your "Average" consumer is an idiot who will never accept fault.

It's the same as women who buy knockoff designer purses, have the purse get a rip and then find out the warranty it supposedly came with doesn't exist. They scream and rant at the company and ignore the fact that they knew the deal was too good to be true to begin with.

[ThehAWKs]

point made by Qumahlin@ is right apple barely tries to stop the hacintosh community, the whole hacintosh community does not like companies like Psystar steeling from them and using their work to make money.

[iamwhoiam]

Fortunately we can ignore that because running Mac OS X on a non-mac computer is forbidden by the EULA which this ruling upholads.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a supreme court ruling in 1984 said Apple cannot force their OS to be used only on their computers and seeing how this case was ruled over by a U.S. district judge, which cannot supercede a supreme court ruling, I see it as moot point.

I do not need to hear how Psystar broke the first sale doctrine as it has nothing to do with what I quoted and doesn't pertain to my reply of the quoted text.

[the evn show]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a supreme court ruling in 1984 said Apple cannot force their OS to be used only on their computers and seeing how this case was ruled over by a U.S. district judge, which cannot supercede a supreme court ruling, I see it as moot point.

You're wrong.

The ruling cited a dozen relevant cases all of which supported the ruling this judge issued.

Do you really think a judge would look at dozens of case histories but accidentally overlook supreme court opinion, and absolutely nobody but you would pick up on that?

I'm debating the fact that an end user, who buy an OS X license and modifies some files is in violation of the law.

Psystar broke multiple laws, one of which grants Apple an exclusive right to make derivative works - that's why it's ruled on as a separate claim and not as part of the DMCA claims.

That's DMCA teritorry not Title 17 because there is no copying going on.

Court ruled multiple infringing copies are being produced - even by simply turning on the computer and copying the application to memory. Reason being: the copy on the drive was an unauthorized derivative work?an infringing copy? and an infringing work cannot be used to make legal copies?by turning on the computer an loading the OS into memory.

The anti-circumvention rules of section 1201 were also violated but if you cut out all mention of the DMCA this would still be an illegal act.

[iamwhoiam]

Do you really think a judge would look at dozens of case histories but accidentally overlook supreme court opinion....

It wouldn't be the first time where the lower courts failed to research properly before handing down decisions, nor would it be the last.

Edited November 18, 2009 by iamwhoiam

[CentralDogma]

Psystar broke multiple laws, one of which grants Apple an exclusive right to make derivative works - that's why it's ruled on as a separate claim and not as part of the DMCA claims.

Court ruled multiple infringing copies are being produced - even by simply turning on the computer and copying the application to memory. Reason being: the copy on the drive was an unauthorized derivative work?an infringing copy? and an infringing work cannot be used to make legal copies?by turning on the computer an loading the OS into memory.

The anti-circumvention rules of section 1201 were also violated but if you cut out all mention of the DMCA this would still be an illegal act.

I think we're talking about two different subjects here. I'm not disagreeing with you, Psystar had multiple legal problems that had nothing to do with the DMCA. They were redistributing OS X (the WHOLE OS X) without Apple?s permission. And, they were modifying it on top of that! Even if they had bought the licenses (which they might have, I haven't looked that up), the shrink wrap defense isn't going to hold here. And the fact that they modified the OS means they probably can't hide behind first sale either.

That's all the more reason why, when you say "installing Mac OS X on a new computer, adding some kernel extensions so your motherboard/gpu/etc work, and replacing the boot loader is copyright infringement" it's not really supported by rulings made thus far (especially this one). The DMCA is the only thing preventing that, and as I've already said, that section is on shaky ground.