Apple loses Hackintosh ruling, angers judge | Hacker News Reader

Apple loses Hackintosh ruling, angers judge

theregister.co.uk

51 pointsjacquesm22 comments

I've read all kinds of "Hackintosh" guides, but I didn't know there was a company out there doing business in this area.

Has anyone tried any of the Psystar Hackintoshes?

They look impressive:

http://store.psystar.com/ads-rebel/rebel-22-osx.html

Did you mean to post what appears to be a referral link?

SID probably equals session ID, from him clicking around on the site.

Not a referral link...I am not that smart.

They seem to be going out of their way to defeat themselves with marketing, though. Comparing a 19" Psystar to a 20" iMac, and a 22" Psystar to a 24" iMac... Seems like just using a 20" and 24" would have been more of an apples-to-apples comparison. So to speak.

Unlike with an iMac, you can swap the monitor out. So it's kinda apples-to-oranges any way you look at it.

It's not the machines I'm criticizing, but the marketing.

The cases are ugly as hell, though.

I'd rather build one myself with a nicer case.

Go Psystar go!

Psystar's suit alleges that since Apple is "tying its operating system to Apple-branded hardware," Cupertino is unfairly monopolizing the market for what Psystar dubs "premium computers," and by doing so "collects monopoly rents."

The suit is specific to Apple's new Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard operating system - which is why Apple wanted it thrown out, saying that the new suit was "essentially identical" to the existing legal imbroglio between Apple and Psystar, which centers on the previous operating system, Mac OS X 10.5, aka Leopard.

Uhh, that seems pretty straightforward...

Either the judge doesn't understand that there's really nothing different about Snow Leopard or there's some legal nuance I'm missing.

If you'd finished the article, you'd have noticed that it was the second half of the request that the judge rejected. Apple wanted the judge to reopen the discovery part of the precedings to take into account 10.6 which was released after the the discovery part had already closed. The judge said that this was Apple's fault for delaying the release of the OS and declined the motion, the whole motion.

This sort of just highlights how the legal process just doesn't have the ability to deal with either the time frames or the technical challenges of the newer industries.

Throw in the ability of things like software to escape easy definition and/or the need for new legislation in light of new paradigms and you basically are stuck.

Apple purposely delayed the release of Snow Leopard so that the discovery period had ended, they then realised they needed it open and applied for it to be reopened. The judge denied this because Apple brought it on themselves, so how are there time frame problems? Apple fucked itself through its own legal incompetence, done and done.

Yes because Apple chooses all the ship dates for their OS updates based on rinky-dink legal cases. Actually Snow Leopard original scheduled ship date was 3 weeks AFTER it actually went on sale so they didn't 'delay' anything.

But you're completely right Apple "fucked itself" by releasing their new operating system ahead of schedule.

Apple purposely delayed the release of Snow Leopard so that the discovery period had ended

This is claimed, not proven.

Um, actually Apple wanted to toss out Psystar's suit because it does take into account 10.6. Apple is saying that the suit is like the existing suit which deals with 10.5.

I think the point is that if Psystar does win the right to sell Mac OS, Apple could force the judge to only allow them to sell 10.5 instead of the latest versions.

Seeing as OSX is a Unix variant, don't any improvements to the OS have to be released free of use? I was under the impression that the Mac license reads 'You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.' because they cannot legally require that the OS only operates on Apple hardware. Therefore if, if a manufacturer wishes to use the OS, they would need to provide Apple branding. At the same time, this may be the catch-22. You can't use apple branding without the permission of Apple, and you can't install the OS without using the branding.

OS X is a variant of a BSD UNIX and, if I remember correctly, the license does not* require them to release changes and definitely not free of use.

Also, much of OS X that people like is the Cocoa stuff which most definitely is not covered by a free software license.

>I was under the impression that the Mac license reads 'You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.'

That's part of the End User License Agreement, isn't it? I'm not a lawyer, but I remember reading that those aren't legally binding (at least not in sane countries) since they're legal agreements made after the purchase. You didn't agree to it as a condition of the purchase so how can the seller force you to do something after you already own the software?

It's unclear if those are binding. Courts have ruled both ways. That's one of the issues in the case.

So, you're not legally allowed to install the OS without the permission of Apple, which they grant if it's an Apple machine.

That's it.

No, BSD terms do not require redistribution. They do release some of OS X sans GUI as Darwin.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com