This is copied/pasted from the article.

The problem: Apple's end user license agreement expressly forbids installation or sales of its operating systems on third-party hardware -- a fact that led the company to file suit against Psystar last month and demand that any systems previously sold by the company be recalled.

What the hell is wrong with apple. They are basically saying you have to buy our overpriced hardware or you cannot buy or use our operating system. I wish Psystar would just flood the market with free OSX and then apple could sue everyone on the planet. Reason #186,945 that I will never buy an Apple product.

@Substance_D: Yes, sort of. What your referring to is what I just stated above, that the question is whether the restriction of tying the OS to specific hardware via a shrink-wrap license is a violation of Anti-Trust law. So the question isn't about the recurring debate over whether EULAs are valid or not, but whether The Sherman Act trumps an EULA. They will of course also try to attack EULAs as a secondary argument.

Zlevee

@: Whether the Sherman Act trumps an EULA is a more winning approach than trying to challenge EULAs altogether.

Zlevee

I feel like "Psystar" planned this from the beggining. They want OSX to compatible with ALL computers, they're not trying to make tons of money. What happened was that Apple never filed a suit so Psystay decided to seriously persue making mac clones. After they had moved out of their old headquarters (in a guy's house) and into a real office building, apple struck with their team of lawyers. Thing is, psystar ALSO has a team of lawyers, that were ready the nexy day with counter-aregument against apple. What's being fought about in court has very little to do about Apple's EULA, and is more about the lgality of the way apple sells its OSX operating system.

At least, that's the way I understand the situation...And i've been following it closely.

Substance_D

Legally, unless there's an injuction by the court while the lawsuit is pending, Psystar can do whatever they feel like doing and business should be as usual.
No story here....

Tempting. If Apple would just update the mini to allow dual-link DVI... I'm not going to pay out the ass for a Mac Pro just to run my 30" dell when I replace computers every 3 years.

NNTPgrip

@.endejas.: How about here?

Definitely a EULA test.

Where'd they get all their OSX licenses?

.endejas.

All this talk of the EULA. The real issue is stealing of IP, copyright and trademark infringement. The OS X they installed on their machines is off the disc they sold to their customers. It's hacked copy that they DLed of the internet. There is no way they can get around that. Having bought a product does not entitle me to steal another version of it and then sell it altered without the owners permission. Only the owner, not the reseller, is allowed to alter their software as they see fit.

Leonard Nimrod

It makes a lot of sense to continue to try to grow their business. If they win, then they have a viable business afterwords. If they lose, Chapter 7. I know the bankruptcy laws have changed, and I never was familiar w/ bankruptcy law, but a corporation is a separate entity than the owners, that's the point of an LLC. So the only loss might be that of the corporation, and if the owners were on salary, this won't ruin them. This may actually make them sought after corporate guru's, or not.

jkr's bold comment

@getz76: My first comment was to you.

Joseph

@: If you read the license agreement, you only get a legit license of OSX when you buy a machine. If you buy Leopard in a box, that is considered an upgrade.

I would actually buy one of these. I need a cheap OS X server to act as a Radius Server, Directory, and a Certificate Authority.

Joseph

I'm thinking about buying one right now...one being a phystar...i mean why not??

I like leopard, but I don't like macs in general, something about paying out the ass for a sexy shell when the os is really all i want...although i'm not sure yet, can you BYO (put in my own vid card, hdd, etc)w/ phystar's "open" computer once you get it?

It's not machismo; there's no injunction, so why shouldn't they continue business as usual?

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

Psystar is in the right and everyone with commonsense knows this. Apple needs to give it up already.

SinAmos

@Joseph, good point. I think calling it an upgrade may be challenged, though. It might be semantics.

@Leonard Nimrod, I disagree. I hold IP and value IP protection. But, if I buy the software, I will do what I wish with it. I can smash it with a brick or modify it for personal use. The question is whether, having paid for the OS, can you have someone else modify it for distribution? The EULA says no, but the EULA is just a contract, not the law. Anything illegal in a contract is non-binding.

Let's not make Psystar out to be an activist company just trying to make sure that all OS are open. Everyone knows (or should by now) about hackintosh (no hacking required). These guys are just trying to make a buck off of it. I know Apple is the big corporate monster we're supposed to hate, but put your reality glasses on. You wanna hack a mac os, go ahead, but don't try to sell me one with "Psystar just wants OSX to be compatible with ALL computers" nonsense. They don't want you to hack your own, they want to SELL you THEIR hackintosh.

kahri

@frigg: Word.

SinAmos

@jkr: Corporations and LLCs are difference corporate entities. And *limited* liability is not *absolute* liability. I know nothing about Pystar's organization, but they are not necessarily protected...

Dave!

@Substance_D: I think it's even more calculated than that. Psystar has never been in the business of selling computers. They're in the business of selling a legal theory.

frigg

@kahri: And what's the problem with that, exactly? Why is openness bad when people start to make money off of that?

Besides, if this was really a quick cash grab, they'd probably have settled by now instead of lawyering up with a firm that has an awesome track record against Apple. They are fighting for software freedom. And money, but mostly software freedom.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

Apple must have a fairly solid EULA on this otherwise they would have been challenged sooner. I hope Psystar wins though. Apple can continue to make high quality products, and if someone wants a cheaper lower quality alternative, all the power to them. Lower priced alternatives may also stop apple from killing off the Mac Mini.

You agree to the EULA when you install the software, but it has to be reasonable. Imagine if Microsoft added a clause into their EULA waying that VMWARE is not allowed to virtualize Linux on a Windows box. They would get slaughtered.

Now I just wish someone could tell me how to get OSX running on my Thinkpad X61.

This is great news! Keep it up, guys!

yoshi

It's kind of odd, but the people that I see really defending Psystar's right to do whatever they want with OSX are the same ones that get all up in arms when a company is caught selling GPL software and not following the terms of the license.

GPL gives you the software for $0 + agreement to the terms of the license. Apple is not charging $130 for OSX. They are charging $130 + agreement to the terms of the license.

And realistically anyone who follows Apple knows that the hardware sales subsidize the OS development. If Psystar wins the right to sell computers with OSX all that will happen is that either shelf copies of OSX will go to $500 a copy (with upgrade coupons included with Apple computers?) or else Apple will go to the trouble of adding a real hardware lock or TCM. Anyone actually interested in seeing future Apple development should not be hoping this goes through.

Ryan H

@HeartBurnKid....: I see your points, but I must disagree that they're 'fighting for software freedom'. First, they are lying to those they're supposedly fighting for by selling them a patch which they downloaded for FREE from people who ACTUALLY care about open computing. Second, they make no mention of this, much cheaper, method to their customers (isn't that what people complain about apple?). I don't care if psystar makes a killing on these machines and no I don't care if apple does either. I just find it funny that those who complain that apple is overcharging it's customers support a company doing the same thing simply because it's anti-apple.

kahri

I wouldn't find it hard to believe if steve jobs went to psystar personally and burnt the place down then cut off the owners heads with a mac book air.

vinnyr

Grr. Bad commenting system, baaaad. No treats for you.

bluemonq

@Joseph: At what point does an Apple machine cease to be an Appple machine? How many pieces (including the case) before it ceases to be an Apple machine? And of the parts you've removed, how many would it take to be assembled to be considered an Apple machine again? I could see some amusing legal end-runs with this.

bluemonq

@Joseph: I've been thinking about this issue (discs at stores are for upgrading only). Let's say you get a secondhand Mac Mini. You remove all the components from the case. It's still an Apple desktop, right? Then you remove the RAM. Is it still a (stripped) Apple? Remove remaining removeable components one by one (which if I recall, shouldn't be that many if you're talking about a Mac Mini. If you were to then move all the loose components onto a new motherboard, is *that* an Apple desktop? If not, at what point did it cease being an Apple machine?

If you can maneuver your way to that point, then it becomes a question of how much of the original Mac Mini do you have to have in order for it to still be an Apple desktop.

Then the fun begins.

bluemonq

@kahri: Meh, you'll have a point when the folks at Dell are telling you that you can also build your own Windows machine. It's just not germane to the discussion.

You also seem to be forgetting that a legal decision in Psystar's favor here would likely also serve to legitimize the Hackintosh. It'd take it out of the legal gray area it currently occupies and say, unequivocally, you have the right to do this, and you can even re-sell the machine afterwards if you so choose.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

@Ryan H: Just because it's in the license, doesn't mean it's enforceable or conscionable.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

@bluemonq: "Grandfather's Axe" ;)

strider_mt2k

I just never knew there was a that many people who wanted to run OSX on their dells. I guess all the anti apple stuff is just aimed at their hardware, who knew?

kahri

I hope they win! Go Psystar!!! F the Apple MAN!

bonedog73

@kahri: Mostly, yeah. OSX is a fine system; most people just don't want to have to pay the Apple Tax (i.e. spend way too much for overdesigned hardware) or give up their upgradeability to use it.

HeartBurnKid, creepy morbid freak

I totally believe everything was pre-planned.

How to royally screw Apple.

1- sell Mac clones with OSX

2- Apple sues

3- Counter with Monopolistic sales argument

4- court orders Apple to open OS

5- People begin to buy Cheap PCs and OSX

6- Apple either significantly lowers prices on hardware or eventually shuts down the whole department.

7- Psystar continues buisness as usual.

KLanD

@jkr's bold comment: Pretty much right on the money. This is classic scam business operation 101: make a corporate entity, run some basic get-rich quick business of dubious legality, draw fat salaries and corporate perks, walk away when someone finally sues the company and forces it to shut down. Gizmodo's earlier article about whether Psystar is a scam showed how the owner has something like a couple dozen other business names registered to him. He could care less if they win the suit, he will just move on to the next business. I doubt anyone from the company will be sought after though.

rhys1882

@getz76 said, "I disagree. I hold IP and value IP protection. But, if I buy the software, I will do what I wish with it. I can smash it with a brick or modify it for personal use. The question is whether, having paid for the OS, can you have someone else modify it for distribution? The EULA says no, but the EULA is just a contract, not the law. Anything illegal in a contract is non-binding."

You don't value IP if you think that anyone can be reseller and steal it at will. Altering your own software is allowable by law, but that isn't what Psystar is doing. They are stealing a hacked copy of OS from torrent sites, installing it on their systems and then selling it to people. They aren't using the store bought upgrade DVD for their installs. This is theft no matter how you cut it.

Note that Apple isn't going after InsanelyMac for helping people install OS X on their own HW, they are just going after Psystar for selling stolen IP.

Leonard Nimrod