Apple clones, how the 1st amendment could solve the legal problem

[LinuxFanBoi]

I've been following the Psystar legal fiasco a bit and this idea came to me.

If I sell you a computer, and also sell you OS X but leave it up to you to install it, and I give you the printed instructions explaining how to do so, I believe there is no liability on my part. The reason is this, Printed instructions explaining how to do something, even something that is illegal is constitutionally protected.

Just as a gun dealer can legally sell a firearm, a box of commonly available hardware and an instruction manual explaining how to convert the fire arm to fire fully automatic, the gun dealer hasn't broken any laws, the user is the liable one.

[drawkcab]

Do you have a link that will bring me/others up to speed?

[CJ Master]

Do you have a link that will bring me/others up to speed?

Psystar is a company that installs a hacked version of Mac OS X on regular pcs and sell them for much cheaper.

[Exodist]

I've been following the Psystar legal fiasco a bit and this idea came to me.

If I sell you a computer, and also sell you OS X but leave it up to you to install it, and I give you the printed instructions explaining how to do so, I believe there is no liability on my part. The reason is this, Printed instructions explaining how to do something, even something that is illegal is constitutionally protected.

Just as a gun dealer can legally sell a firearm, a box of commonly available hardware and an instruction manual explaining how to convert the fire arm to fire fully automatic, the gun dealer hasn't broken any laws, the user is the liable one.


But the use and possesion of the firearms (i.e. Finished Product) is illeagle.

[Pogeymanz]

But the use and possesion of the firearms (i.e. Finished Product) is illeagle.

Touche

[LinuxFanBoi]

But the use and possesion of the firearms (i.e. Finished Product) is illeagle.

You're right, but to put this in the context of Psystar's situation, they made themselves liable by installing the OS for their customers. Thus giving Apple a deep pocket to take to court. No one is saying that either method is legal, but if Psystar leaves it up to the user to install per some printed instruction, the user is the one liable not Psystar.

Leaving it up to the user means Apple would have to take them all to court one by one, sending their legal costs through the roof making legal action cost prohibitive.

Had they taken this rout, people would still be able to enjoy using a Mac clone, should that be what they want without paying the outrageous prices Apple charges for their machines. That's what this is all about, isn't it? Apple forcing people to pay more than they really need to.

[hobo14]

But the use and possesion of the firearms (i.e. Finished Product) is illeagle.

Um, so? Possession and use of computers and OSs isn't. What's your point?

[subdivision]

Um, so? Possession and use of computers and OSs isn't. What's your point?

I think the point was that you can't really compare an OS to a firearm and be left with a meaningful analogy.

[Sporkman]

Who says they're allowed to distribute MacOSX?

[Roaster]

Who provided the printed instructions?

[hobo14]

You're right, but to put this in the context of Psystar's situation, they made themselves liable by installing the OS for their customers. Thus giving Apple a deep pocket to take to court. No one is saying that either method is legal, but if Psystar leaves it up to the user to install per some printed instruction, the user is the one liable not Psystar.

Leaving it up to the user means Apple would have to take them all to court one by one, sending their legal costs through the roof making legal action cost prohibitive.

It may solve their legal problem, but it's unlikely to be a successful business. People don't like installing their OS. Most people can't/won't install Windows. Most people don't know what an OS is!

[LinuxFanBoi]

I think the point was that you can't really compare an OS to a firearm and be left with a meaninfgul analogy.

I know there are some of you out there going "wait, what? someone installed OS X on a gun?" focus on the idea and not the analogy please.

[LinuxFanBoi]

It may solve their legal problem, but it's unlikely to be a successful business. People don't like installing their OS. Most people can't/won't install Windows. Most people don't know what an OS is!

I think the people interested in running OS X on a non proprietary system are probably capable, willing and knowledgeable enough. The flock of sheep we call the average computer user wouldn't buy from anything but an apple store to buy a Mac. If they're smart enough to discover that there's a difference between what Apple is selling and what Psystar was selling, they've stood out as a group very different from the flock.

[SLEEPER_V]

a. whether or not the gun is legal to own is a state by state issue.
b. the intent would be for psystar to enable people to have a hackintosh
and anyone who has ever watched cops knows that intent is valid law

[Crunchy the Headcrab]

You're missing the point. You said that the gun dealer is AUTHORIZED to sell (distribute) common hardware for converting a gun. Nobody, except Apple, is AUTHORIZED to distribute macOS. Nice try though.

[Paqman]

I think the people interested in running OS X on a non proprietary system are probably capable, willing and knowledgeable enough.

Sure, but these folks are also capable, willing and knowledgable enough to download OSx86 for free and install it on their current hardware. So I agree with hobo14. There's no money to be made selling OSx86 unless it's as a pre-installed system ready to go.

I'm pretty disappointed Psystar lost actually. I think it would have been interestingly disruptive to the whole PC market if the courts had upheld their right to sell Mac clones.

[KiwiNZ]

Psystars was never going to succeed. They had forecast to sell 1.45 million Mac clone computers by 2011. The actual number to date was 768.

Looking at their machines shows their specifications were below par. Also they were clearly legally compromised.

Any scheme like this is doomed. Consumers are not going to risk their cash due to risky support etc should the likely collapse occur.

[LinuxFanBoi]

You're missing the point. You said that the gun dealer is AUTHORIZED to sell (distribute) common hardware for converting a gun. Nobody, except Apple, is AUTHORIZED to distribute macOS. Nice try though.

Funny, I can go to Fry's and buy a copy, nice try though.

[KiwiNZ]

Funny, I can go to Fry's and buy a copy, nice try though.

Crunchy the Headcrab Should have said that only Apple and its authorized resellers can sell new editions of Apple OSX

[hobo14]

I think the people interested in running OS X on a non proprietary system are probably capable, willing and knowledgeable enough. The flock of sheep we call the average computer user wouldn't buy from anything but an apple store to buy a Mac. If they're smart enough to discover that there's a difference between what Apple is selling and what Psystar was selling, they've stood out as a group very different from the flock.

I disagree. Don't get me wrong though, I would love to see Psystar succeed.


Crunchy the Headcrab Should have said that only Apple and its authorized resellers can sell new editions of Apple OSX

The problem is that it isn't "sell", it's the transfer of a licence. Psystar has no authority to transfer Apple's "licence".

Everyone (including Psystar) has the right to sell something they've legally bought. Right of first sale (in the US).

[dmn_clown]

whether or not the gun is legal to own is a state by state issue.

I think you'll find that possession of automatic weapons (the gist of the original analogy) is a federal issue.


Psystar has no authority to transfer Apple's "licence".

I think you'll find that anyone that buys licensed software can sell that licensed software as long as they don't retain any copies of the licensed software. Current US Copyright law allows that.

The problem is that EULA's forbid it and they may or may not be enforceable under contract law depending on who you talk to.

@ the O.P. - Apple could still sue you. They could sue you because your breathe stinks, they could sue you because your hair reeks, they could sue you because of the dust on your cheeks... They can sue you on a boat they can sue you in a moat... they can sue you over a box, they can sue you over your socks... they can sue you because of a fox, they can sue you over your lack of locks...

If the Theodore Geisel-esque rhymes seem silly, it is because the US legal system is silly because anyone can sue anyone for anything.

[LinuxFanBoi]

If the Theodore Geisel-esque rhymes seem silly, it is because the US legal system is silly because anyone can sue anyone for anything.

And instead of suing one company with more means to pay the judgment, They would have to file suit against an unknown number of people who probably don't have the means to pay a judgement even if they lost in court. Ever heard of someone being judgement proof? Can't get blood from a turnip.

The cost of filing all those suits would make it cost prohibitive.