Psystar Wants To Make A Go Of Just Selling You The Tools To Install Mac OS On Your PC
from the and-the-lawsuits-shall-continue dept
Following Psystar's big loss to Apple over selling PC's with Mac OS installed on them, the company's website has gone dark. However, Psystar claims that it's going to stay in business and try to sell PCs with other operating systems and its $50 Rebel EFI software, which is what can apparently be used to allow individuals to install MacOS on their own. However, Apple still contends that even Rebel EFI is infringing. Again, this doesn't make much sense if you think about it. Why should a piece of software that lets you run another piece of legally purchased software be illegal?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: computers, copyright, freedom to tinker, macos
Companies: apple, psystar
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the permanent injunction against Psystar?
"Specifically, the court banned Psystar from: ...
Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers."
Correct me if I am wrong, but to me it seems that the above language might cause problems for the Rebel EFI software.
It seems to me that Psystar is on thin ice with Rebel EFI.
The judge’s injunction specifically includes the company’s software however, “Whether Rebel EFI violates the terms of the injunction set forth in this order is a factual issue more appropriate for a contempt action.”
The Rebel EFI software is designed to allow the easy installation of “multiple operating systems” (including Mac OS X). Now I agree with Mike "Why should a piece of software that lets you run another piece of legally purchased software be illegal?" but, as the judgment states “It is not only inappropriate, but impossible to determine on this record whether Rebel EFI falls within “thesame type or class of unlawful acts” found at summary judgment. This order declines to “bless” aproduct about which it knows little of substance. Psystar’s second argument is therefore rejected,and Psystar — if it continues to do so — sells Rebel EFI at its peril.”
CNET News(December 16)
ZDNet (Also December 16th)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the permanent injunction against Psystar?
Sorry about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the permanent injunction against Psystar?
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the permanent injunction against Psystar?
OK, you're wrong. That says nothing about tools and fair use permits the owners themselves to bypass DRM for purposes of interoperability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, Rebel was based on another open source project. Rebel. They just wrapped it, encrypted it and sold the open source code for $50
I have a MacPro and MacBook Pro now, because I found value in the OS and found that Win7 was based on a great deal of what OSX had.
Want an anonymous person to sent a Professional version of Windows 7 or a big plastic deer for Christmas? Either will be sent to the Wycombe address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it can be illegal
Same way as firearm which used to shoot on legally purchased targets can be illegal.
There's nothing special about software. Yes, it can be illegal similarly as some books are illegal. "Mein Kampf" is known example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it can be illegal
Hmm, as best as I can tell, possession and lending of Mein Kampf is only illegal in one country: Austria. Everywhere else possession and non-commercial lending is A Okay, though some places have made it illegal to sell for profit.
Even in Germany, where the copyright for the work is held by the state of Bavaria, owning, discussing, and lending the book is legal.
What'll be fun is in 2015, when the work enters into the public domain....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, it can be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, it can be illegal
Er? A lot of people disagree with me here at times, but I've never been accused of trolling....
I saw something that I think was wrong and felt like correcting. Perhaps I have the definition of trolling incorrect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, it can be illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rebel EFI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple and the Garage Door.
So the OS is DRMed to work only with a certain hardware and if you bypass that it could be seen as a breach.
The OS looks for the security chips the code is inside if you bypass that you can use it.
Many virtual machines have to emulate the security chip of the motherboard of apple computers or take out the code that searches for them in the OS.
That is why maybe apple is claiming it is illegal the OS is DRMed and to use it you have to bypass that "security feature".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Rebel EFI to work, it has to trick the MacOS into thinking it is on a mac. It circumvents restrictions that are placed in the software by the manufacture. To make it work, you have to present the OS installer with false information, to bypass security in place on the software. It isn't exactly much different from a keygen in many ways, providing you with a method to trick the software into working where by design (and by license agreement) it should not run.
This is one of those deals where you have to accept the simple fact: Apple does not license their OS to run on any other hardcore except the hardware they have approved. Even if you can technically do it (by force) it is still in violation of the usage agreement.
It's pretty easy to spot circumvention and violation of license terms. Yes, somehow I am not surprised to see you coming down on the side of infringers and license violators, that is pretty much the rule here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks for re-stating the technical details, I'm sure no one here knew anything about.
The Anti-Mike does deserve credit for poitning out one of the reasons to not purchase products from Apple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I also agree, it is a good indication of why not to buy from Apple, and why they have always been second class citizens in the computer market to Microsoft, who doesn't care where you use their products as long as you pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The hardware.
In copyright land even doing these stuff would be illegal, but in the real world we all understand that manufactures have limitations on what they can do and this knowledge was gained after centuries of exploitation and misuse of laws.
Once you bought something no one would accept anybody telling you what you can and cannot do with it, but surprisingly when it comes to copyright that is exactly the premise of the whole thing is just crazy.
People making those laws are asking for trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The hardware.
Those rights are limited. To assure that their limited rights are respected, Apple not only secures their software, but has other requirements to make sure those rights are respected.
When you pay Apple for an operating system, you are purchasing the rights only to use it on Apple approved hardware. If you don't like those rights, don't buy them.
You are not buying a product (like a sofa or a TV), you are buying rights (usage). Once you get past that misconception, the rest of your argument (and much of Mike's rant) becomes meaningless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The hardware.
Could it be that you are referring to the purchase of copyright material ie: music, movies, software?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rebel is not illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rebel is not illegal
(and using some quasi-legal hijinks to do it)
My point in my earlier post which I ether did not make sufficiently clear (or the trolls chose to ignore) is that based on the language in the decision it seems that the Psystar Rebel EFI Software is probably going to be found to be infringing. I am not saying that it should be just that that is the way this judge sees it. As far as the idea that fair use permits the owners themselves to bypass DRM for purposes of interoperability the problem is that as I understand it the DMCA doesn't allow any exceptions to the bypass of DRM. So that argument fails to help. I think the Guns and books argument has been sufficiently destroyed already.
RE: "Apple does not license their OS to run on any other hardcore except the hardware they have approved. Even if you can technically do it (by force) it is still in violation of the usage agreement."ť
This goes top the heart of the issue the problem being that you ARE purchasing it and as such should not be limited by a (possibly unenforceable - but it seems to get enforced anyway even if it is wrong) licensing agreement. I don't see how this type of thing helps anyone. It just feeds itself and certainly destroys the spirit of innovation and completion that the founding fathers worked so hard to protect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rebel is not illegal
Copyright doesn't apply to tools that can be used to infringe (or pens would be illegal), only to infringing works. So, you need to explain how distributing the tool would infringe Apple's copyrights since Apple doesn't own the copyright on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rebel is not illegal
It's a circumvention tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rebel is not illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]