Ok difference between breaking the EULA and the Law

[hanzomon4]

I see a few closed threads about installing OS X on non apple hardware. I'm sorry but how is it illegal, i.e. against the law, to install software you own. You're not stealing anything, only breaking the EULA which is tantamount to ripping the tag off of a mattress. If you're not selling it or distributing it how on earth can it be illegal? Now I understand locking threads that link to cracked/pirated copies of OS X, but locking threads that discuss installing a bought copy of OS X on non apple hardware seems like a snap decision lacking good reason. Am I alone here, or do others think it's a bit ridonkulous?

[hyper_ch]

Breaching the EULA (where there is contractual consense and not just giving the law again) is breach of contract. The act of breaching a contract is then considered as illegal as contracts are mutual agreements and should be respected and fulfilled by all parties involved.

So basically you don't get punished because for violation of the terms in the EULA but for not resecting the agreement...

At least that's the case here in Switzerland.

Besides that the EULA can also contain provisions which are law (and contracts often do). By violating them you are violating the law and hence acting illegal.

[lisati]

It's kinda like the difference between owning the software and owning the right to use it. Or, if you like, copyright, where you're not actually buying the right to make copies of music or software etc, but the right to play or otherwise enjoy it.

[Rinzwind]

I see a few closed threads about installing OS X on non apple hardware. I'm sorry but how is it illegal, i.e. against the law, to install software you own. You're not stealing anything, only breaking the EULA which is tantamount to ripping the tag off of a mattress. If you're not selling it or distributing it how on earth can it be illegal? Now I understand locking threads that link to cracked/pirated copies of OS X, but locking threads that discuss installing a bought copy of OS X on non apple hardware seems like a snap decision lacking good reason. Am I alone here, or do others think it's a bit ridonkulous?

In Holland what you want to do here is not illegal. For home usage you are always allowed to do whatever you want with the software. Re-selling is also legal; only distributing is illegal.

But the forum stance will be US-law so those topics will be closed.

[LaRoza]

I see a few closed threads about installing OS X on non apple hardware. I'm sorry but how is it illegal, i.e. against the law, to install software you own. You're not stealing anything, only breaking the EULA which is tantamount to ripping the tag off of a mattress. If you're not selling it or distributing it how on earth can it be illegal? Now I understand locking threads that link to cracked/pirated copies of OS X, but locking threads that discuss installing a bought copy of OS X on non apple hardware seems like a snap decision lacking good reason. Am I alone here, or do others think it's a bit ridonkulous?


But the forum stance will be US-law so those topics will be closed.

No we don't. We follow the Ubuntu Forums Code of Conduct and use our judgement in what is considered illegal. Normally, we consider following the EULA's of software to be something worth following. We respect theirs, they respect ours.

Also, this is Ubuntu forums. Ubuntu doesn't have such restrictions and is free.

If you think I am "lacking good reason", post in the Resolution Centre.

[justin whitaker]

The OSX Eula is fairly straight forward: putting the OS on a non-Apple labeled computer breaks the contract.

A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled 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.

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf

So if you put it on a Dell, you are in breach of contract. Are they going to come after you? Probably not. They could, and probably will, come after the people that are making it possible.

Either way, the CoC is pretty clear on this. It's illegal, and the forum crew are just doing their job.

[hanzomon4]

Isn't it possible that some of the provisions in EULA are illegal? How can they say what you can and can't do in your own home with a product you bought? It doesn't hurt them in anyway but it does make what I bought seem more like a rental. It just so wrong to put such a non-sense clause in a contract. By the way I have a macbook pro and have no desire to run a hacked up OS X, but I still think people should be allowed to try.

[justin whitaker]

Isn't it possible that some of the provisions in EULA are illegal? How can they say what you can and can't do in your own home with a product you bought? It doesn't hurt them in anyway but it does make what I bought seem more like a rental. It just so wrong to put such a non-sense clause in a contract. By the way I have a macbook pro and have no desire to run a hacked up OS X, but I still think people should be allowed to try.

The OSX EULA hasn't been tested, AFAIK. I am not a lawyer.

My guess is, you click OK, you are bound by the terms. That seems to be the side that the Courts fall on.

Remember, Apple is not about the OS-they are in the hardware sales business. All the design, ease of use, and Steve Jobs "sparkle" is all about selling you another iMac, iPod, or iPhone. Now that OSX is on Intel chips, they wanted to make sure they weren't undercut by 100 white box OSX PC sellers...the EULA certainly closes that door.

[LaRoza]

Isn't it possible that some of the provisions in EULA are illegal? How can they say what you can and can't do in your own home with a product you bought? It doesn't hurt them in anyway but it does make what I bought seem more like a rental. It just so wrong to put such a non-sense clause in a contract. By the way I have a macbook pro and have no desire to run a hacked up OS X, but I still think people should be allowed to try.

Yes it is possible, however, we are not in a position to challenge it. We are not a law firm and the focus of this forum is on Ubuntu.

[hanzomon4]

Yes it is possible, however, we are not in a position to challenge it. We are not a law firm and the focus of this forum is on Ubuntu.

I'm not asking you to do anything I'm just having a discussion in the OS X subforum.

I know for sure that just signing something does not makes it right in the eyes of the court. Programs for troubled teens are always getting sued for fraudulent or unfair contracts. It's a consumer rights issue at it's core this issue. How much can companies restrict consumers in the use of products purchased from said companies?

[justin whitaker]

I'm not asking you to do anything I'm just having a discussion in the OS X subforum.

I know for sure that just signing something does not makes it right in the eyes of the court. Programs for troubled teens are always getting sued for fraudulent or unfair contracts. It's a consumer rights issue at it's core this issue. How much can companies restrict consumers in the use of products purchased from said companies?

Because it's not protected by consumer rights. You assign those away when you click through.

Prior to the section that I quoted, there was a line about "all rights not expressly assigned to you are retained by Apple"...and then the rest of the EULA goes on to basically tell you that you have no rights, even if OSX steals your lunch money, kills your cat, and runs off with your wife.

Now, if you read the EULA, and don't want to sign it, then they have to take the PC back. That's their defense: you have the option of walking away.

Check Groklaw, the EFF, and other sources for more on this.

[Alfa989]

Isn't it possible that some of the provisions in EULA are illegal? How can they say what you can and can't do in your own home with a product you bought? It doesn't hurt them in anyway but it does make what I bought seem more like a rental. It just so wrong to put such a non-sense clause in a contract. By the way I have a macbook pro and have no desire to run a hacked up OS X, but I still think people should be allowed to try.
You don't buy a product, you buy a licence to use that specific product. Therefore, they can include any product-related clause they want. And yes, it virtually *is* a rental... [:(] But I don't see why is it non-sense... They make a piece of software, if you want to use it, accept the licence... It's that simple. :D

[Alfa989]

Now that OSX is on Intel chips, they wanted to make sure they weren't undercut by 100 white box OSX PC sellers...the EULA certainly closes that door.
The clause has been in the Mac OS X EULA since it came out, I think... :)

[hanzomon4]

The EULA is null if a court finds that software is sold not licensed (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html)

[LaRoza]

The EULA is null if a court finds that software is sold not licensed (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html)

That is not what that case said.

[handy]

You don't buy a product, you buy a lisence to use that specific product. Therefore, they can include any product-related clause they want. And yes, it virtually *is* a rental... [:(] But I don't see why is it non-sense... They make a piece of software, if you want to use it, accept the licence... It's that simple. :D

That is my understanding too. The EULA's from the likes of Apple, MS, Adobe, Macromedia etc... Give you the right to use their software with the limitations of use that they contract.

Back on the Apple EULA, it sounds like if you stuck one of those white Apple stickers that they often supply with a new computer purchase, on your non-Apple computer you would technically not be breaking Apple's EULA contract.

[hanzomon4]

That is not what that case said.

Yes it did,

In a 21-page decision, Judge Jones sided with Vernor. Citing the 1977 case of United States v. Wise, which involved the sale of used films obtained under dubious circumstances, Jones found that the Ninth Circuit's precedents suggested that the circumstances surrounding the sale of AutoCAD software constituted a sale, not merely a license. Therefore, the First Sale Doctrine applied, and Vernor was not bound by any of the terms in Autodesk's license agreement.

If Jones's ruling is upheld on appeal, it will have important consequences for the software industry, where the legal fiction that software is merely licensed is widely employed. In addition to discouraging the market for used software, software firms have also attempted to use the "licensed, not sold" theory to enforce restrictions on reverse engineering that would otherwise be fair use under copyright law. If software is sold, rather than licensed, then no license is required to install and use the software, and the terms of shrink-wrap licenses may not be legally binding.

[handy]

This may be a very important case for the software industry in certain parts of the world.

It will be interesting to see how the case pans out. I expect that the software industry giants will lean on their friends (shareholders & board members) in the U.S. Senate.

[Alfa989]

Back on the Apple EULA, it sounds like if you stuck one of those white Apple stickers that they often supply with a new computer purchase, on your non-Apple computer you would technically not be breaking Apple's EULA contract.
Mmm...

Well, it says "Apple-labeled" which would imply that computer having an Apple label... :-k

[chewearn]

The OSX EULA hasn't been tested, AFAIK. I am not a lawyer.

My guess is, you click OK, you are bound by the terms. That seems to be the side that the Courts fall on.

Remember, Apple is not about the OS-they are in the hardware sales business. All the design, ease of use, and Steve Jobs "sparkle" is all about selling you another iMac, iPod, or iPhone. Now that OSX is on Intel chips, they wanted to make sure they weren't undercut by 100 white box OSX PC sellers...the EULA certainly closes that door.

The Apple EULA is being challenged by Pystar, which is now shipping Open Computer with preinstalled OSX. Last I read, Apple has a bunch of lawyers working on it. It will be interesting how the case pans out.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9919432-37.html

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/04/15/psystar-on-apples-eula-no-comment-but-check-out-openpro

[LaRoza]

Yes it did,

It still doesn't say that...

Even if it did, it is only the 9th Circuit.

The 9th Circuit has weird decisions all the time.

(I don't know how familiar you are with legal research)

[hanzomon4]

Well I don't know how else to read it the judge said that the software was sold and not merely licensed. Even though the license agreement prohibits the resell of the software this person can still sell it because they sold it. It only makes sense that this could apply to apple prohibiting the instillation of osX on non apple hardware. They no longer own that copy of osX, I could cut it up and make an art piece with it and they would not be able to tell me **** because I own that copy. Just like firefox can't prohibit me from looking at porn with their browser. I'm well aware that this case is not the final word on this, but it shows that I'm not insane.

[Alfa989]

It only makes sense that this could apply to apple prohibiting the instillation of osX on non apple hardware. They no longer own that copy of osX, I could cut it up and make an art piece with it and they would not be able to tell me **** because I own that copy.
1.- The DVD is not "a copy of OS X". It's merely a "convenient gift" so you can get the actual software. What you buy is the licence.

2.- You don't own "****" either because you buy a licence. You don't get a copy and you certainly don't have the rights to do whatever you want with it.

[hanzomon4]

Again, a judge ruled that autocad was sold rather then just licensed. The critera the judge used would totally apply to osX.

[Alfa989]

Again, a judge ruled that autocad was sold rather then just licensed. The critera the judge used would totally apply to osX.
Did that Judge have any idea about computer software whatsoever?

[LaRoza]

Again, a judge ruled that autocad was sold rather then just licensed. The critera the judge used would totally apply to osX.

A single judge in the Ninth Circuit, yes. The case didn't apply it to OS X.

[hanzomon4]

No it didn't but it did speak to the software industry as a whole because they all do the same thing, claim to license something that's clearly sold.

Again not the final word by any means, but a very interesting decision.

[3rdalbum]

The OSX Eula is fairly straight forward: putting the OS on a non-Apple labeled computer breaks the contract.

So if you put it on a Dell, you are in breach of contract. Are they going to come after you? Probably not. They could, and probably will, come after the people that are making it possible.

A court can rule that a EULA is invalid because it places unreasonable restrictions on the user. It's up to the court to decide if "You must run this on an Apple computer" is unreasonable, but I believe that the iTunes EULA I recieved with my mother's iPod is unreasonable for saying that the Windows version can only be run on a Macintosh (this was back when Macs were PPC).

[billgoldberg]

The rule here is that you need to be able to get the info on what you are buying before you buy it.

Since EULA's can only be read when you install the software/OS, they aren't a real contract, so you don't have to follow them.

[anxfisa]

First of all, only supreme court rulings apply to federal law, copy right law is subject to international treaty agreement (such as UN codes.) They can decide to prosecute if it becomes a problem.

Second point, all of this is a good case for sticking to free software and aiding in its development and promotion.

[Alfa989]

The rule here is that you need to be able to get the info on what you are buying before you buy it.

Since EULA's can only be read when you install the software/OS, they aren't a real contract, so you don't have to follow them.

Mmm... I believe you get a printed copy of the licence, don't you? At least my iBook came with one :-k

And you get asked wether you accept the EULA before installing... :) So I'd day it is a real contract :)

[mips]

Mmm... I believe you get a printed copy of the licence, don't you? At least my iBook came with one :-k

And you get asked wether you accept the EULA before installing... :) So I'd day it is a real contract :)

If you go and buy OSX in the store it comes in a sealed box. If you open that box you can no longer return it. You have to open the box to get to the EULA. If you disagree with the EULA you cannot return the product. This is contrary to consumer rights in many countries.

Not all EULAs are legal either. You cannot have a contract that violates some inherent rights and other laws of a country.

[mips]

A single judge in the Ninth Circuit, yes. The case didn't apply it to OS X.

What happens if the US Supreme Court denies a petition for a writ of certiorari? Would that make it any more real?

The case of DATA GENERAL CORP. v. DIGIDYNE CORP. , 473 U.S. 908 (1985)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/908/
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/908/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/908/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court

DATA GENERAL CORP. v. DIGIDYNE CORP. , 473 U.S. 908 (1985)

473 U.S. 908
DATA GENERAL CORPORATION
v.
DIGIDYNE CORPORATION, et al
No. 84-761
Supreme Court of the United States
July 1, 1985
Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 1985.
See 473 U.S. 926.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Justice WHITE, with whom Justice BLACKMUN joins, dissenting.
Petitioner in this case manufactured and sold a central processing unit for computers known as NOVA. Petitioner also created and sold a copyrighted operating system for NOVA called RDOS. RDOS was a very popular operating system, but petitioner's licensing agreement prevented customers from using it with any central processing unit other than petitioner's NOVA. [ Data General Corp. v. Digidyne Corp. 473 U.S. 908 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/908/case.html) (1985) ][908-Continued.]
Respondents sued, claiming that petitioner's marketing strategy amounted to an illegal tie-in in violation of the antitrust laws. After a jury trial, the District Court granted petitioner's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, defining the appropriate market as the " market for general purpose minicomputers and microprocessors." In re Data General Antitrust Litigation, 529 F.Supp. 801, 821 (ND Cal.1981). No reasonable juror could find, the court determined, that within this large and dynamic market with much larger competitors petitioner had the market power to restrain trade through an illegal tie-in arrangement. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and reinstated the jury verdict in favor of respondents. 734 F.2d 1336 (http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/734/1336/) (1984). The court concluded that the tying arrangement was illegal per se, because petitioner's RDOS operating system was sufficiently unique and desirable to an appreciable number of buyers to enable petitioner to force those consumers to buy its tied product, the NOVA central processing unit.
The Court of Appeals' decision in this case is suspect on several grounds. As we have consistently explained, a particular tying arrangement may have procompetitive justifications, and it is thus inappropriate to condemn such an arrangement without considerable market analysis. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla., 468 U.S. 85 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/85/case.html), 104, n. 26, 2961-2962, n. 26, 82 L. Ed.2d 70 (1984); Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 11 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/466/2/case.html#11)-14, 1558-1559 (1984). Anticompetitive forcing only exists if consumers are forced to buy a tied product as a result of the
Page 473 U.S. 908 , 909
sellers' market power, not simply because of the desirability of the package. Id., at 24-25, 104 S.Ct. at 1564-1565. The Court of Appeals looked to market power over "locked in" customers who had already purchased petitioner's wares, viewed the copyright on the operating system as creating a presumption of market power, and seemingly concluded that forcing power is sufficiently established to demonstrate per se antitrust liability if some buyers find the tying product unique and desirable.
Drawing distinctions between the permissible and the forbidden in this area is difficult, and the posture of this case-a jury verdict overturned by the District Court but reinstated on appeal-creates an additional layer of complexity, since each court below took a different view of what facts were relevant. Nonetheless, this case raises several substantial questions of antitrust law and policy, including what constitutes forcing power in the absence of a large share of the general market, whether market power over "locked in" customers must be analyzed at the outset of the original decision to purchase, and what effect should be given to the existence of a copyright or other legal monopoly in determining market power.
At stake is more than the resolution of this single controversy or even the clarification of what may seem at times to be a collection of arcane legal distinctions. In the highly competitive, multibillion dollar a year computer industry, bundling of software and hardware, or of operating systems and central processing units, is somewhat common, and any differentiated product is especially attractive to some buyers. The reach of the decision in this case is potentially enormous, and as the United States strongly urges us to do, I would grant certiorari to address the substantial issues of federal law presented.

Full Text of Opinion (http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/908/case.html)

[Master Chief]

Every Ubuntu installation comes with Mozilla Firefox, which asks you to agree with its EULA or it won't even startup.

These days we even have add-ons which require you to "sign" their EULA.

[handy]

Intellectual property really is something.

I know I don't own mine, it comes & goes as it pleases, sometimes I go looking for it & I can't find it anywhere...

[L815]

What Apple is doing is what Microsoft has been sued for in the past. They are restricting their OS to THEIR Hardware ONLY. If you buy a legal copy of OSX you are not breaking any laws for running it on any other computer. You are only breaking their Eula, which in turn is why I think Apple will lose in the end.

[mips]

You are only breaking their Eula, which in turn is why I think Apple will lose in the end.

Have to agree on that.The Data General vs Digityne case above kinda backs that up.

[Canis familiaris]

So you mean If I purchase OSX and install it in my AMD desktop I would not be Breaking the Law or doing something illegal?

[mips]

So you mean If I purchase OSX and install it in my AMD desktop I would not be Breaking the Law or doing something illegal?

Wait for the ruling of the court case rather.

[solitaire]

So you mean If I purchase OSX and install it in my AMD desktop I would not be Breaking the Law or doing something illegal?

Every country is different Legaly but basically:

Technically yes, since you have not broken any laws. But that may not stop Apple proceeding in a civil suit. (Not good P.R. to take loads of users to civil court, example: most RIAA legal challenges).

In the case of Paystar: They were only open to legal challenge once they started to issue their own version of the OS X upgrades instead of Apple's version. Paystar had to modify the Upgrade to make it run on their Equipment. Thereby breaking copyright laws. This opened the way for Apple to take them to a legal court instead of a civil court.

Buying a boxed OS and selling it on (unopened) is not illegal. The fact it was being sold with a PC with no OS installed makes not diffrence. Evan installing the OS on the Machine is in a lighter end of the Legal Gray area. EULA's have not been highly tested by the court system.

Also their is the fact of a company, like Paystar, breaks the EULA and sell it on, is the new owner also breaking the EULA? They may or may not have seen, or agreeded to, the EULA when they get the machine. Apple says YES and wants every Paystar machine returned. But what Apple wants and the Law provides may be totally different.


*Note*
The above is my opwn opinion and not based in anything other than common knowlage of the Legal system in Scotland. Actual relation to any laws (living or dead) is entirely coincidental and not intended to be used in a court of law.(or a court of tennis or other ball sports).... :D:D

In short IANAL :D:D

[Canis familiaris]

Wait for the ruling of the court case rather.

This court case seems a win-win situation for Apple according to me.
If they win the case, then they obviously "win"
But even if they lose the case, they may end up "Winning" still because it may be possible then the entire mass of discontent Windows users shifting to their platform, particularly if Windows 7 fails to impress.

[handy]

What Apple is doing is what Microsoft has been sued for in the past. They are restricting their OS to THEIR Hardware ONLY.

The BIG difference between MS & Apple, is that apart from a few mouses & keyboards, MS is NOT a hardware manufacturer, MS is a software manufacturer; Apple IS a hardware manufacturer.


If you buy a legal copy of OSX you are not breaking any laws for running it on any other computer. You are only breaking their Eula, which in turn is why I think Apple will lose in the end.

By running OSX, on a non-Apple computer you are breaking contractual law.

Apple win.

Even if you stuck an Apple sticker on your PC.

[solitaire]

This court case seems a win-win situation for Apple according to me.
If they win the case, then they obviously "win"
But even if they lose the case, they may end up "Winning" still because it may be possible then the entire mass of discontent Windows users shifting to their platform, particularly if Windows 7 fails to impress.


it's more of a Win / Win-Loose.

If they win, then they keep their current business model intact.

If they loose and 3rd parties begin to sell Apple OS X then Apple will have to start taking support calls from a lot of ex-Windows users saying..."My graphics card does not work! I want it fixed" or "My sound card is not recognised! How do i make it work?" etc... etc...

More sales, but more tech support staff..

[darrelljon]

By running OSX, on a non-Apple computer you are breaking contractual law.

Apple win.Not all contracts are legally enforceable as they may contain unfair terms. The burden of proof is on Apple.

[handy]

Apple are very happy & extremely profitable with their current business model.

Apple don't want to be the dominant OS, they would happily be the producer of the dominant amount of the hardware being used, which would as a side effect make them the dominant OS.

Apple will defend their intellectual property vehemently, they will also only give anything away when they see it as being in their long term interest.

Apple are (these days) smarter than MS.

MS has got extremely fat & complacent in comparison to Apple who never stop innovating (even if that means stealing other people's designs & calling them their own.)

Apple are at least as ruthless as MS, I would say more so.

[handy]

Not all contracts are legally enforceable as they may contain unfair terms. The burden of proof is on Apple.

I strongly suspect that in the U.S. Apple would win.

You don't think that the courts are fair do you, most especially in the good old U.S. of A. ?

[phenest]

I liken this to buying a new washing machine. Wash what you like with it, but don't expect the makers to fix it when they discover you have been cleaning engine parts with it.

So too, the EULA. Do as you like with the software. But don't expect support if you've been using it outside the limitations of the agreement.

It would only be illegal if you acquired the software illegally, not how you use it.

[handy]

I liken this to buying a new washing machine. Wash what you like with it, but don't expect the makers to fix it when they discover you have been cleaning engine parts with it.

So too, the EULA. Do as you like with the software. But don't expect support if you've been using it outside the limitations of the agreement.

It would only be illegal if you acquired the software illegally, not how you use it.

I agree, the individual has nothing to worry about; do what you will within or without the law PERSONALLY.

When you make your presence known publicly, that is when you have stepped into the gladiators arena with Apple...

[mips]

If they loose and 3rd parties begin to sell Apple OS X then Apple will have to start taking support calls from a lot of ex-Windows users saying..."My graphics card does not work! I want it fixed" or "My sound card is not recognised! How do i make it work?" etc... etc...


There is a way around that. On the box print "Only supports genuine Apple hardware".

If you don't have genuine Apple hardware then contact you hardware vendor XYZ for support.

[hanzomon4]

The BIG difference between MS & Apple, is that apart from a few mouses & keyboards, MS is NOT a hardware manufacturer, MS is a software manufacturer; Apple IS a hardware manufacturer.



By running OSX, on a non-Apple computer you are breaking contractual law.

Apple win.

Even if you stuck an Apple sticker on your PC.

So what! are they going to take back their 1s and 0s? I mean really?!? That's as legal as putting a sticker on pizza telling you how, when and with who you can eat it.

[damis648]

It's kinda like the difference between owning the software and owning the right to use it. Or, if you like, copyright, where you're not actually buying the right to make copies of music or software etc, but the right to play or otherwise enjoy it.

Exactly. You do not own it. You agreed to a contract (EULA) when you installed it (By pressing the agree button) that gives you License to USE it, in whatever way is stated in the EULA (in this case, the EULA states a single license on a single Apple hardware machine at a time). You do not in any way own it. This is why we believe in the open source philosophy... because oppressive companies like Apple and Microsoft give us our OS's "on loan" if you will. They have loaned us license to use it, but nobody but Microsoft and Apple themselves actually own their OS. We OSS believers want to OWN our software, and do what we want with it, when we want to do it, and however we want to do it.

[saulgoode]

Since many of Apple's claims of copyright infringement (and in my opinion the only legitimate ones) are premised upon distributing modified code, it shall be interesting to see whether any (or all) of that code fell under BSD licensing terms.

[mips]

Since many of Apple's claims of copyright infringement (and in my opinion the only legitimate ones) are premised upon distributing modified code, it shall be interesting to see whether any (or all) of that code fell under BSD licensing terms.

Probably not.

[saulgoode]

Probably not.
It seems unlikely to me that Psystar would have access to Apple's proprietary source code -- or does Apple publish this? Even if they did, modifying such source, compiling, then distributing the result would be blatant infringement and I can't imagine anyone hoping to raise a viable defense for such action.

Likewise, were Psystar to make binary edits to the Apple system files (assuming they figured out how to properly do so), the case for infringement would be equally strong; unless those edited files did not fall under the terms of copyright.

If Psystar is distributing modified versions of OS X then they should have some basis for believing that doing so is permitted under copyright law. I don't know what modifications are made to the OS X package, but I can imagine some scenarios where Apple might consider a modification to be infringement while others would dispute the claim.

As a (purely hypothetical) example, what if OS X included a program which performed hardware detection and set up some configuration files (similar to how X11 functions). If Psystar removed that program and provided their own substitute then it could be reasonably argued that no modification was made to copyrighted code. Considering that the core of OS X is based on BSD code, and it is this core which is typically burdened with the task of interfacing with hardware, it is conceivable that the proprietary Apple program is based heavily on BSD code and that the substitute provided by Psystar relies solely on BSD-licensed code.

This is of course mere speculation; but Apple threw a boatload of claims into their lawsuit (in hopes of gaining a preliminary injunction) and it would be premature to assume that all of those claims have merit.

[mips]

Considering that the core of OS X is based on BSD code, and it is this core which is typically burdened with the task of interfacing with hardware, it is conceivable that the proprietary Apple program is based heavily on BSD code and that the substitute provided by Psystar relies solely on BSD-licensed code.

With the BSD license you can do with the code as you please. And BSD is really not that big a part of OS X like some people tend to believe.

I still however don't believe Apple have a leg to stand on when you look at the history of court cases in this regard.

[Dojan5]

Breaching the EULA (where there is contractual consense and not just giving the law again) is breach of contract. The act of breaching a contract is then considered as illegal as contracts are mutual agreements and should be respected and fulfilled by all parties involved.

So basically you don't get punished because for violation of the terms in the EULA but for not resecting the agreement...

At least that's the case here in Switzerland.

Besides that the EULA can also contain provisions which are law (and contracts often do). By violating them you are violating the law and hence acting illegal.
Same in Sweden.

[mips]

Here's Psystar's Answer with Counterclaims - Oh, Brother! -Updated 3Xs, as text

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080829184018767

.

[handy]

It's looking like big money is having another go at pulling a big swifty.

It will be very interesting to see how this one pans out.

Not that I'm expecting it to happen swiftly though.

[solitaire]

Current counter claim By Pystar in Apple V's Pystar:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03251/204881/12/0.pdf

Interesting read from page 93: Line 1 to Line 26

1 Jobs announced the planned release of the aforementioned Mac OS X for late 2006 or early 2007.
2 At the same conference, APPLE Senior Vice President Phil Schiller noted that APPLE had no plans
3 of running the Windows OS on a Macintosh but noted “[t]hat doesn’t preclude someone from
4 running it” and that APPLE “won’t do anything to preclude that.”
5 56. In contrast to allowing (and all but inviting) others to run a competing OS on a Macintosh
6 and, further, openly stating that APPLE would not do anything to preclude the same, Schiller stated
7 that APPLE did not plan to let people run the Mac OS X on other computer makers’ hardware; said
8 Schiller: “[w]e will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.”
9 57. True to its word, and by its own admission in paragraph 18 of APPLE’s Complaint, APPLE
10 “prohibit[s] use of the Mac OS or its upgrades on non-Apple hardware.”
11 58. On information and belief, PSYSTAR alleges that APPLE intentionally embeds code in the
12 Mac OS that causes the Mac OS to recognize any computer hardware system that is not an Apple-
13 Labeled Computer Hardware System. Upon information and belief, PSYSTAR alleges that upon
14 recognizing that a computer hardware system is not an Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware System,
15 the Mac OS will not operate properly, if at all, and will go into what is colloquially known as
16 ‘kernel panic.’ Through kernel panic, the operating system believes that it has detected an internal
17 and fatal error from which the operating system cannot recover. As a result, the operating system
18 discontinues operation. As noted above, without a functioning operating system, functionality of
19 the corresponding computer is reduced to near zero.
20 59. PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Mac OS need not go into
21 kernel panic as the Mac OS is otherwise capable of operating on any number of computer hardware
22 systems that are not Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems, that is, Mac OS Capable
23 Computer Hardware Systems. PSYSTAR is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the
24 kernel panic is self-induced by APPLE’s embedding of code to prevent operability on computer
25 hardware systems that are not Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems, that is, Mac OS
26 Capable Computer Hardware Systems.
They are trying to "Eat their Cake and have it to"

By saying "We'll let you run any OS you like on our machines. But we won't let you run our OS on anything other than our PC hardware" is basically an artificial monopoly. Which is not legal if it's anti-competitive.

This is not like a innovation monopoly, like a PS3, which has a closed OS, which is not sold separately, that can only run on a PS3 , but other OS's i.e. Linux can be adapted to run on it.

If Apple stuck with PowerPC chipsets rather than moving to Intel based ones then this argument would be harder to prove as their is only a few OS's around now that run on the PowerPC arcutecture.

[mips]

Current counter claim By Pystar in Apple V's Pystar:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03251/204881/12/0.pdf

Interesting read from page 93: Line 1 to Line 26
They are trying to "Eat their Cake and have it to"

By saying "We'll let you run any OS you like on our machines. But we won't let you run our OS on anything other than our PC hardware" is basically an artificial monopoly. Which is not legal if it's anti-competitive.


http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/908/

[solitaire]

http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/908/

The above case bears more relations to the old PowerPC "MAC" than today's Intel MAC.

I'm sure Pystar's Lawyers are all over this with the basic argument: "Since INTEL are the base Hardware in either MAC or the current MAC-Clones the case of DATA GENERAL CORP. v. DIGIDYNE CORP. , 473 U.S. 908 (1985) is a mute point. The OS is running on the same hardware just without the branding."

But IANAL But I can't wait to find out the outcome :D

[VeeDubb]

"The act of breaching a contract is then considered as illegal...."


This statement is 100% false.

Breach of a contract is not a criminal act anywhere in the United States of America. It is actionable in civil court ONLY. You can not be fined by the government, or convicted of any infraction, misdemeanor or crime as a result of breach of contract.

You can be sued, and if the person you broke contract with can demonstrate damages, you can be held CIVILLY responsible for the damages, but that is all.

This is not to be confused with concerns about pirated software, distribution of media without rights, or public display of copyrighted work without permission. These things are illegal because they violate existing copyright laws, and in some cases, are considered theft.

Doubt me? Go find yourself a 1st year law student.

[saulgoode]

"The act of breaching a contract is then considered as illegal...."

This statement is 100% false.

Breach of a contract is not a criminal act anywhere in the United States of America. It is actionable in civil court ONLY. You can not be fined by the government, or convicted of any infraction, misdemeanor or crime as a result of breach of contract.

What you say is true in the United States; however, the author of the original statement qualified it as being how Swiss law treats breach of contract.

One question I have about Swiss (or Germanic) law is when is it decided that breach of contract has occurred. It appears that in cases of contract disputes, violating the terms of a contract results in mandatory remedies and a time-frame for the offending party to comply with the remedies. If I understand things correctly, it is only after the remedies are not satisfied that the contract is considered breached.

This would be similar to a U.S. court first finding breach-of-contract, penalizing a party, and then finding the offending party in contempt of court after failing to comply with the ruling; only the process, and the point at which the contract is breached, is codified differently. In other words, under Germanic law the presumption of innocence is maintained until further along into the process.

I might very well have misinterpreted things and would welcome any corrections or differing opinions.

[michaelkahl]

I'm not a fan of EULA's in retail software and here's the reason...are they going to give me a refund if I decide that I don't agree? I go to my local Best Buy or Wal-mart and I don't see a EULA posted with the product for me to look over prior to purchasing the software. If I go to a pc vendors website I don't see the EULA easily accessible for me to review before deciding to purchase a PC that has the cost of Windows included in the price. The EULA is not present at the Point-of-sale and it annoys me.
My solution, run Ubuntu and other Linux distros.
I'm not MS free, but in my personal use I'm close. Work requires me to use MS products, it's something we have to live with. Now when someone has the backing to challenge this system please do, doesn't mean that software companies don't have the right to restrict the use of their software. I just think that the EULA should be made available prior to the purchase of the product.
BTW I've used a Mac Pro at work for a few days once, and my verdict was "no thanks, not my cup of tea" but to each his own. I'd say if you want OS X then pay to much for an Apple PC until someone can effectively challenge the EULA and put an end to this poor business practice.

[mips]

I'm not a fan of EULA's in retail software and here's the reason...are they going to give me a refund if I decide that I don't agree? I go to my local Best Buy or Wal-mart and I don't see a EULA posted with the product for me to look over prior to purchasing the software.

In theory they should. Kinda stupid that you are only made aware of the EULA after you open the box.

[handy]

It could be helpful to some people if every EULA using company had an easily viewable link to a list of all of their product's EULAs on their primary web page.

[michaelkahl]

That would be a start

[MikeTheC]

Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with the original point of this thread, but I, too, am awaiting the Apple v. Psystar / Psystar v. Apple process to go through our court system. It should be most interesting.

I would side with the prior poster who, quite rightly, points out the fact that Contract Law is CIVIL, not CRIMINAL, law. So breaching/violating a EULA is a "civil" offense, not a "criminal" one. Man, wouldn't that be a helluva thing if you break a EULA, for whatever reason, and you next find yourself sitting in a federal prison somewhere. I dunno about anyone else, but I'm glad our legal system -- corporate America's efforts notwithstanding -- doesn't work that way.

[Frak]

Pro about Psystar vs. Apple
We may have OS X on non-apple hardware legally (as if anybody would do anything)

Cons about Psystar
They think the GPL is a monopoly, and they stole Netkas PC EFI without his permission to use it commercially.

[mike1234]

Pro about Psystar vs. Apple
We may have OS X on non-apple hardware legally (as if anybody would do anything)

Cons about Psystar
They think the GPL is a monopoly, and they stole Netkas PC EFI without his permission to use it commercially.

Did you know most of oil comes from Canada, Venezuela, and Russia? Did you know that we receive very little oil from the Middle East? Do you know if the people that drill off coast will actually sell it back to the U.S.?


Did you know BP is in Prudhoe Bay Alaska? Or Royal Dutch Shell does drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? How retarded is that? No wonder we have no oil.

M.

[cardinals_fan]

Did you know most of oil comes from Canada, Venezuela, and Russia? Did you know that we receive very little oil from the Middle East? Do you know if the people that drill off coast will actually sell it back to the U.S.?


Did you know BP is in Prudhoe Bay Alaska? Or Royal Dutch Shell does drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? How retarded is that? No wonder we have no oil.

M.
Wrong thread. And you seem rather naive on that topic: Shell and BP both have a large number of US stations.

[BLTicklemonster]

Imagine if everyone all of a sudden stopped using Microsoft and Apple software, and started using a linux distribution, and the powers that be at Microsoft and Apple came to us all and begged, "why?", and we, in unison, replied, "because we want to own our software".

Think it would sink in then?

Probably not.

It'd be cool as heck, though, wouldn't it?

[MikeTheC]

There's been a rather stupid and vicious attack-of-the-fanboys discussion thread over at MacRumors.com vis a vis the whole EULA thing, with both the new EFI-X device and OSX86 / EFI v8 thing thrown in for good measure.

What a fat lot of morons; I think there's only a couple sane people in that whole bunch.

And frankly, I'd love it if someone from here who's on over there would quote me as saying such. :)

[Liviu-Theodor]

In another thread I put a post (ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5767118#post5767118) which can be read also here. And there is also something interesting in EULA (at least in the one from Microsoft): there is written that the law applicable is the one from the U.S.A. I really do not know how they can expect all people to respect U.S.A. law. But what if the law in another country permits to do things illegal in the U.S.A.? And what if what is in the law of the U.S.A. is illegal in that country? And what about the story of the russian teacher who Adobe wanted arrested (and transferred to a U.S. court) because he did something perfectly legally in his country, but no under the laws of the U.S.?

[MikeTheC]

Liviu-Theodor raises a very interesting and quite relevant point here. It's actually similar to ones I've raised in the past (though elsewhere) vis a vis Hollywood via the MPAA and RIAA trying to dictate law and policy to other sovereign nations. But yes, you're absolutely right: we all need to be a bit concerned when a company presumes to set legal standards for their customers, regardless of where they live.

Then again, I don't trust Microsoft and never will. Adobe on the other hand, though... well, let's just see how they continue to behave in the technology world. One can only wonder (and as this is a Linux discussion board, let me make mention of it) what Adobe and Quark, Inc.'s reactions are and will continue to be towards the F/OSS community's responses to their products. This could get interesting.

[Liviu-Theodor]

Good to know that at least one other understod what I meant (MikeTheC) and agrees to me.

To explain to others, what we are talking about is similar to this situation: a car making company from Germany or France (where you drive on right, with the steering wheel on left) produces cars to be sold in UK or Australia (where you drive on left, with the steering wheel on right). But instead of making cars with the specifications for UK or Australia, they would threat their customers to be sued for not driving on right, as in Germany or France.

Note: this is just an imaginary situation, and the countries were choosed only based on which side of the road one drives.

This is exactly what the "software giants" do: instead of them trying to respect the laws of the countries where they sell their licenses, they threat the customers from there because they do not respect the laws of the country where the companies reside (even though such customers haven't been there and have no intentions to go there).

Note: this is not an imaginary situation.