Home
Sunday, June 25, 2017
6:53:12 AM
Users online: 0   You are here >> Home > Mac

Forums | Mac Forums search
Forum FAQ
   
  1 | 2 Next Page 
Apple sues Mac cloner
back2future 
16/7/08 11:11:11 AM
Disciple
Several mionths ago, company Psystar started to manufacture computers reported to be Mac compatible. These units could run Leopard, despite the OS Licence saying you cannot install it on non-Apple hardware.

Apple have reportedly issued a lawsuit claiming violation of Apples Copyrights, Trademarks and licences.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080715-apple-finally-sues-unlicensed-macintosh-cloner-psys

Are we seeing the start of another IBM vs Compaq war regarding clone computers?

My thoughts are : this will be very interesting to watch. With Apple now using Intel hardware, just how much of an Apple Mac is off-the-shelf compoents, easily available in the market? This is one thing that did IBM in. Their PCs used components that were easily purchased in the market.

The next bit will be what Firmware/BIOS copyrights do Apple claim are in the machine, and did Psystar create their own versions or outright copy Apples? Again, IBM lost on this side of things because Compaq did not copy the BIOS, they made their own.

In one way, I hope Apple loses, because this could open up the Apple hardware market, maybe even increasing the market share of Macs.

-----

kunzie 
16/7/08 11:21:10 AM
Titan

Quote by back2future
Several mionths ago, company Psystar started to manufacture computers reported to be Mac compatible. These units could run Leopard, despite the OS Licence saying you cannot install it on non-Apple hardware.

Apple have reportedly issued a lawsuit claiming violation of Apples Copyrights, Trademarks and licences.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080715-apple-finally-sues-unlicensed-macintosh-cloner-psys

Are we seeing the start of another IBM vs Compaq war regarding clone computers?

My thoughts are : this will be very interesting to watch. With Apple now using Intel hardware, just how much of an Apple Mac is off-the-shelf compoents, easily available in the market? This is one thing that did IBM in. Their PCs used components that were easily purchased in the market.

The next bit will be what Firmware/BIOS copyrights do Apple claim are in the machine, and did Psystar create their own versions or outright copy Apples? Again, IBM lost on this side of things because Compaq did not copy the BIOS, they made their own.

In one way, I hope Apple loses, because this could open up the Apple hardware market, maybe even increasing the market share of Macs.




I'm not really for being able to buy a clone Mac. The trouble with clone PCs is that (even though they're much cheaper) they come inherent with flaws. Apple is a premium company and their name is synonymous with oftentimes flawless, top tier products.

-----
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=489929

TinBane 
16/7/08 12:01:26 PM
Mod
Hero

Immortal


Firmware/BIOS copyrights?
Apples use EFI, which is an intel standard designed to replace BIOS.

Apple won't lose.

-----
absit iniuria verbis

Quote by Takoma
I have an ignore list built into my clicking finger.



noobmelater 
16/7/08 12:26:47 PM
Banned

Yeah but forgive me if I'm wrong most anybody can buy said EFI boards.

Furthermore there's nothing to say that they're not using said available EFI boards... there was actually a big push in the last couple of years FOR PC makers to transition to EFI

Even IF Pystar isn't using the same hardware the only thing they can possibly lose on is a technicality that bootloaders can't load OS X

But then Darwin is GPL open source code so good luck to apple winning on that front as the code has already been put under GPL for people to modify as they wish

Here's hoping that this opens up OS X to the PC Market.

Quite frankly if apple didn't want this to happen maybe they should have found a more reliable CPU partner then IBM and not played in the x86 playground in the first place.

You can't open your OS up to that as they have done with Darwin, leach off the open source community and then complain when someone recodes the boot loader and actually loads OS X just because you were daft enough to transition to the same hardware platform.

Apple have lost the one thing that protected them and that was non x86 hardware.

Until intel or another manufacturer supplies them with non x86 compliant hardware this will continue to go on legally or illegally.

I'm afraid Apples only answer to this problem is to go back to using non x86 hardware

They probably have the cash now if they wanted to buy out someone like via, and make there own non x86 compliant x86 CPU's but then that'd probably get them in hot water with intel

could this possibly lead to a revival of the PPC CPU arch for Macs?

Cell as is in most of the current games consoles is actually quite a fine chip


Edited by noobmelater: 16/7/2008 12:34:12 PM

-----

SquallStrife 
16/7/08 1:26:27 PM
Titan

Another bobbobson. Yay.

The fact of the matter is that OSX86 is still repackaged/reverse engineered to bypass the TPM check.

This is a violation of both the EULA and the DMCA and you wouldn't last long against their overpaid lawyers.

Cell is in ONE current games console, not "most".

-----
Q6600 @ 3.6GHz | 8800GTS | XP x64 | Vista HP x64 | OSX 10.5.2 Down for the moment...

noobmelater 
16/7/08 3:51:36 PM
Banned

The only thing that's hacked is an open source boot loader that isn't really hacked at all considering it's GPL status ... As has been shown once it's booted you can use a vanilla 10.5.4 DVD to install and the EULA for OS X has more holes in it then a sieve

Nothing really has been reverse engineered I'm sure if you had one of intels EFI boards it would boot.

It just needs a boot loader because the macs boot loader is built into it's EFI. Thats the thing with ROM's and firmware is that you can actually put things in them. I've hacked a Mac ROM myself before to load Linux and later OS X with an upgraded CPU on a PPC mac, and yep the loader sits in the Macs ROM

PC's are different they have a BIOS therefore you need to put something in the MBR of a normal motherboard/hard drive setup to attain the same purpose.

Oh yeah whist I'm at it OS X DOES NOT use TPM this is a myth

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/

TPM was used by the developers of OS X in ONE SDK for 10.4.1 when it was being developed and that was for hardware checking, there is no TPM in the official 10.4, or in 10.5 or on any Mac EFI motherboards, it never has been used for security purposes either and whilst the TPM chip is there it is not used by OS X

EDIT: For what it's worth I'm using exactly that vanilla kernel right now and furthermore I have used apple updates to get 10.5.4 which did nothing like break my installer as purported


Edited by noobmelater: 16/7/2008 04:55:48 PM

-----

TinBane 
16/7/08 5:13:00 PM
Mod
Hero

Immortal


I agree to a point noobmelater, but the fact of the matter is that apple can demonstrate that it is against the law for unlicensed manufacturers to create clones of their hardware.

There is no way the US courts, conservative as they are, will bend over and allow that kind of EULA violation, on top of trademark infringement, and reverse engineering of non GPL code.

-----
absit iniuria verbis

Quote by Takoma
I have an ignore list built into my clicking finger.



noobmelater 
16/7/08 5:34:37 PM
Banned

Well possibly not as you said due to the conservatism of US courts, if this happened somewhere else in the world Apple would lose.

That said the EULA has been interpreted by some as loosely as having an Apple sticker on your computer qualifying you for the EULA

Take that with a grain of salt, but it is fairly open to interpretation whether or not that will hold up for Psystar is another matter to itself

-----

spyder 
16/7/08 6:16:44 PM
SuperHero
Immortal


Well, now we're talking about 2 different things here.

a) the hardware. HAVE they broken any law by creating a "compatible" machine? Did they copy any of Apples' hardware patents to do it, or are they just using standard components that are available anywhere?

b) Software - granted the Leopard EULA says it;s not licenced to be installed on non-genuine Apple hardware. But the way I read the situation, Psystar are NOT installing the software. So ultimately it would be the end user breaking the licence, not the hatrdware maker.

Ahhh, fun and games coming to a court near you!

-----
E6850|Thermalright Ultra 120|Antec Atlas case|Thermaltake Toughpower 600W P/S|Asus P5K Deluxe/WiFi|2Gb OCZ 8500 Reaper|3x500Gb+1x160Gb SATA Drives|Pioneer 212 DVDRW |XFX 8800GTX|Creative Xfi Sound|2 x Viewsonic 2021m 20" LCD monitors

TheSecret 
17/7/08 2:35:42 AM
Master
First of all, Apple is not taking legal action against Psystar for distributing OS X on cloned hardware. They are suing because of a copyright infringement, because in the latest release psystar modified files in the release and distributed it as OS X.

This has nothing to do with the EULA, allt he recent precedents set in the US show that a EULA does, and will not hold up in court, due to basic legal principles. Apple would not be stupid enough to bring an action against psystar over just the EULA.

-----
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.

SquallStrife 
17/7/08 7:47:14 AM
Titan

noobmelater: "EDIT: For what it's worth I'm using exactly that vanilla kernel right now and furthermore I have used apple updates to get 10.5.4 which did nothing like break my installer as purported"

Interesting. I'm using the vanilla kernel, but any of the "OS version" updates kill my install. Did you upgrade from 10.5.1?

-----
Q6600 @ 3.6GHz | 8800GTS | XP x64 | Vista HP x64 | OSX 10.5.2 Down for the moment...

TinBane 
17/7/08 8:26:31 AM
Mod
Hero

Immortal


Quote by TheSecret
First of all, Apple is not taking legal action against Psystar for distributing OS X on cloned hardware. They are suing because of a copyright infringement, because in the latest release psystar modified files in the release and distributed it as OS X.

This has nothing to do with the EULA, allt he recent precedents set in the US show that a EULA does, and will not hold up in court, due to basic legal principles. Apple would not be stupid enough to bring an action against psystar over just the EULA.



+1

This isn't hardware or EULA related. This is why Apple has waited, rather than going for the jugular early and failing. It's reverse engineering and copyright infringement. Suffice to say, if I scratched together an OS X clone, that looked exactly like OS X, made from linux and KDE or something, I couldn't sell it as os x. Likewise, if I modify OS X (which is illegal, depending on what I do) and sell it as os x 10.5.4, then I'm breaking both laws. If I sold it as OS X 10.5.4 'compatible', then maybe I wouldn't be copyright infringing.

Both these areas of law are well established (vs EULA rulings) and favour the plaintiff, where the plaintiff is a large multi-national, in the US, based on the legal precedent, and number of rulings for/against.

So pretty much, bye bye psystar.

Now on top of this, Apple's legal team isn't exactly new or inexperienced, or under financed. It's also not an external body. At best, this case may drag out, but I think the result is pretty much a done deal, unless there is a BIG change in the US legal system.

-----
absit iniuria verbis

Quote by Takoma
I have an ignore list built into my clicking finger.



noobmelater 
17/7/08 12:34:15 PM
Banned

Quote by SquallStrife
noobmelater: "EDIT: For what it's worth I'm using exactly that vanilla kernel right now and furthermore I have used apple updates to get 10.5.4 which did nothing like break my installer as purported"

Interesting. I'm using the vanilla kernel, but any of the "OS version" updates kill my install. Did you upgrade from 10.5.1?



I upgraded from 10.5.2, then 10.5.3 using kalyway and the vanilla kernel then 10.5.4 using apple updates

-----

SquallStrife 
17/7/08 1:26:03 PM
Titan

Ah. Thanks! :)

-----
Q6600 @ 3.6GHz | 8800GTS | XP x64 | Vista HP x64 | OSX 10.5.2 Down for the moment...

orinjuse 
18/7/08 3:14:32 PM
Hero
Immortal


Quote by kunzie
I'm not really for being able to buy a clone Mac. The trouble with clone PCs is that (even though they're much cheaper) they come inherent with flaws. Apple is a premium company and their name is synonymous with oftentimes flawless, top tier products.



Agreed - one of the things that makes OS X so slick is that it can be programmed specifically for the Mac hardware. If you've got to cater for 10,000 different systems like Windows, it'll get just as bloated.

-----
Die, you zombie bastards!

noobmelater 
18/7/08 4:47:01 PM
Banned

But OS X is getting seriously bloated, with every release we're seeing 50 new and unnecessary gimmicks. It seems every time Apple wants to add a new integer to OS X they've got the mentality that they have to find something new to add to it.

Oh well at least we can finally have virtual desktops on OS X just like every other Unix like OS out there now all we need is to able to do it properly and have TTY's

-----

TinBane 
18/7/08 4:51:56 PM
Mod
Hero

Immortal


Quote by noobmelater
But OS X is getting seriously bloated, with every release we're seeing 50 new and unnecessary gimmicks. It seems every time Apple wants to add a new integer to OS X they've got the mentality that they have to find something new to add to it.

Oh well at least we can finally have virtual desktops on OS X just like every other Unix like OS out there now all we need is to able to do it properly and have TTY's



Apparently snow leopard is going to pare back the OS somewhat, and remove some of the bloat. A lot of the features are really useful, imho.

-----
absit iniuria verbis

Quote by Takoma
I have an ignore list built into my clicking finger.



noobmelater 
18/7/08 5:06:27 PM
Banned

Hmm... expose was cool, spaces is a bit hit and miss. It definitely doesn't work as easily as virtual desktops on Linux through any of the major desktops such as Gnome or KDE. Some of the Apple exclusive apps they've designed themselves are pretty cool such as preview, and some of the iApps, garage band, etc... but some of the features that Apple adds some times seem like they're adding to the OS for the sake of adding more stuff

-----

TinBane 
18/7/08 5:08:07 PM
Mod
Hero

Immortal


I know what you mean. Some of the features I made fun of, though, have turned out very useful.

Spaces is a godsend for procrastinators at work :P

-----
absit iniuria verbis

Quote by Takoma
I have an ignore list built into my clicking finger.



noobmelater 
18/7/08 5:59:44 PM
Banned

If you'd ever used virtual desktops on Linux though you'd know spaces has got nothing on it

-----

  1 | 2  | Next Page 
Forums | Mac