Apple/Psystar to have Confidentiality Agreement

Last July, Apple brought a lawsuit against Psystar for violating its End User License Agreement and distributing Apple software on non-Apple hardware. Despite being locked in legal turmoil for the foreseeable future, both companies have agreed to keep trade secrets within courtroom documents and away from prying eyes.

According to Ars Technica, the two companies have come together in an 18 page document, which outlines how Apple and Psystar can approach and review software, code within software, and a myriad of other sensitive information. When it comes to "confidential" information, lawyers are fair game, but only two non-legal employees can be privy to the information in question. As for things marked "Attorney's Eyes Only", only the official council for each company can view the documents.

Reviewing code is an even bigger security concern. When code is reviewed during the case, it can only be done on a computer that has no connection to the Internet. Also, if code ever has to be printed out, all such documents must immediately be classified "confidential."

The rest of the agreement seems straightforward. Any confidential information given from one company to the other must be returned at the end of the trial, and all copies must be destroyed. Also, if any documents that need to be made public contain confidential information, such info needs to be redacted.

While the agreement should make the trial move along more smoothly, we shouldn't expect any sort of verdict anytime soon. The trial itself will not be starting until November, and these sorts of things tend to drag out unless a financial settlement is reached. In the end, it would be nice to see Apple software licensed to vendors again. The practice stopped when Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997, but seeing OS X Snow Leopard on non-Apple hardware could be very interesting while opening up some market share for the operating system. Isn't it time for Apple to "Think Different(ly)"?

Would you run OS X on your PC if Apple made OS X available to all platforms and not just Macs?

You need to be logged to post a comment

There are 38 Comments.

Other Comments

2

captaincharisma , February 28, 2009 6:20 AM

nah i tried a PC version of osx via the osx86 project and did not like it. tried many versions of Linux as well and nothing has been able to let me think of ditching windows
0

waikano , February 28, 2009 6:31 AM

Yes I would. In fact I am seriously considering the Dell Mini 9 or the Lenovo S10 for that very act whether Apple Likes it or not. Don't get me wrong I like Apple and Mac Hardware, but currently Apple doesn't have anything that I really want, although I am curious if they are going to be doing any refreshes in March...cough. Mini....Cough Power Mac.
3

Tindytim , February 28, 2009 6:46 AM

Quote:
Would you run OS X on your PC if Apple made OS X available to all platforms and not just Macs?

Nope. The instance they released it for other machines, it would no longer have any of the benefits normally afforded to Steve Jobbs anal control of the hardware. We'd see driver issues, even more stability problems, and general slow down.
0

jsloan , February 28, 2009 6:50 AM

apple should open up osx to every hardware vendors and allow end users to directly purchase it for their non apple pc. they would go from a nitch player to giving micrsoft a heart attack. i would buy a copy for $99 to play with. they may see a large number of windows xp users who have not upgraded or users who have downgraded from windows vista back to windows xp try their os out and many may just not go back to microsoft... is anyone at apple reading this... or are they content at being a bunch of could haves. dell should be selling it as an option for their pcs, ect... maybe with jobs gone the company can evolve from the nut jackit he put it in.
-12

anonymous@guest , February 28, 2009 7:19 AM

The only people who want Apple's OS to be open to other vendors are those who are to cheap to buy an Apple computer (usual those who don't know value and only see price), Vista users who realized they made a mistake, or people who are generally anti-Apple to begin with.

Apple's business model seems to be working well for Apple, so why switch to a Microsoft business model...Isn't Microsoft trying to adopt a more Apple-like approach?

Bloggers keep on blogging, the world never seems to care, and bloggers never realize.
1

kingssman , February 28, 2009 8:04 AM

I like apple hardware but a mid tower with expandability that is within the price range of a high end mac mini or I mac seems out of reach.

I can either get an underpowered computer for $700, a non upgradeable or expandable for $1,500 or an actual high end tower for $2,200

All i want is a midtower that can hold 2 3.5 hardrives and 2 or 4 graphic cards for multi monitor display
3

the_mystery_gamer , February 28, 2009 8:43 AM

Apple doesn't want to license OS X because it would vastly eat into their hardware sales. OS X is not meant to make them money on it's own, it is meant to persuade people into buying Macs. I think that is one of the reasons Apple has mostly looked the other way from the hobbyist OSx86 community. They know that it gets some people to try OS X who wouldn't otherwise. Some will come to love the OS, and decide it's worth going with an Apple box to have, and BOOM, hardware customer. Heck, if they're lucky the OSx86-er even payed for the original Hackintosh license anyhow.

Even if Apple is forced to license the OS out, I don't think they can legally forced to support it on 3rd party hardware, just to not take any actual measures against 3rd party installs. Debateably (I haven't looked into it enough), aside from some lines in the EULA, they already do it this way. If it is licensed, driver support may be pretty sketchy. They may also be able to keep it mostly in house through a loophole (at least for a little while) by saying "We want to continue to only support EFI booting. It isn't our fault other PC vendors choose not to make EFI boards."
5

Nik_I , February 28, 2009 9:05 AM

i definitely want to at least try osx and i have no problem with actually buying a copy of it. but i refuse to buy an overpriced, under performing, and outdated computer.
3

dezonio2 , February 28, 2009 9:39 AM

Most definitely and for one simple reason: I can build a cheaper and more powerful workstation compared to the hardware Apple currently offers. No I don't care about their design. I want to run Logic Studio, And Final Cut Studio on a computer I can continually upgrade with hardware Apple doesn't even offer. Apple at that point would truly put a dent in MS business...
0

tayb , February 28, 2009 10:01 AM

Would be a very hard transition. If they released it to vendors tomorrow it is not as if you could go pick up a copy and install it on your machine. You thought driver problems plagued Windows Vista?

Apple will fight to the bitter end to keep OS X inside their own environment because wrapping OS X in that expensive hardware is how they make money. The Apple fans out there should be hoping that this DOESN'T happen.
-2

eddieroolz , February 28, 2009 10:14 AM

No. Never in hell will I run a OS X. I consider it a contamination - in fact, I'm running the Safari browser in a sandbox so it won't affect rest of the system.

Call me anything you want, but truth is, I will stay with the versatility of Windows.
0

OrderChaos , February 28, 2009 11:31 AM

I would run it as a dual boot, but I would have to stick with windows as my main...The only time I could see myself using OSX is when I have the rare urge to edit a song or movie, which isn't very often.
-1

cruiseoveride , February 28, 2009 1:17 PM

Its "unforeseeable future" not "foreseeable future"
0

meru , February 28, 2009 7:49 PM

I already run one hackintosh for Audio production (to run Logic 8). OSX is ok - it will be just another decent BSD distrobution if it gets 3rd party licensing. If anything it's made me appreciate Windows alot more. There's nothing specifically amazing about it for me other than Logic after version 5 being mac only.
1

broiled , February 28, 2009 8:50 PM

I'd give it a try. I've used Mac's and have nothing against them, what I have a problem with is having to pay 3-4 times as much money to buy Apple's machine versus building my own. I currently dual-boot between XP and Ubuntu.
1

christop , February 28, 2009 9:21 PM

I hope Apple opens up the os. It might hurt hardware sales but could be compensated for the os sales.. I think it would slap Microsoft in the face.. It would be funny to open up osx right when windows 7 comes out. I would add it to my boot list... Apple's hardware is kinda dated to me and the price is why I don't own a mac.. Let me think.. I could spend 3 grand on a mac and it be so so or I could build a monster pc and control NORAD with it...
0

anonymous@guest , February 28, 2009 9:46 PM

I hate closed OS'es.
Apple is one step further then MS,in the sense that not only can't you investigate the OS;they don't even allow you to build programs!

The more closed a company is, the less I want anything to do with it!

The only reason I'm not on Linux yet,is that I find WinXP, Win98se (with latest SP) and Win7Beta are really well working OS-es, who have plenty of drivers, and work like a charm speedwise.
I don't particularly find Linux faster then windows xp. (Then again I always run it from flash drives).

Linux is like apple, pretty safe, but there are hardly any programs out there that run smooth (games, or other tools I use in Windows).
Though this is getting better lately.

Apple is really last on the list for me!
0

anonymous@guest , February 28, 2009 10:54 PM

Apple will fight until the very end to prevent the transition of OS X from Mac-Rom based computers to all computers because nobody would buy their overprice, underpowered, piece-of-crap computers if they had the choice. Since Apple uses Intel processors now, there is no actual reason to buy a Mac unless you want the "sleek but underpowered" design, or OS X... and if OS X is no longer Mac exclusive, only the remaining pseudo-hip morons would purchase iMacs and the like.
0

Joe_The_Dragon , February 28, 2009 11:10 PM

Apple needs better hardware as there mini is a joke and even with a update may not be good. intel atom in the mini ?? grate slower then to days mini in cpu power even with the 9400m the cpu does not have the power to get full speed with the gpu and that was with 256 of vram apple will likely go with system ram makeing it even slower.

Also what price $500 a little high $600 a joke for a atom $800 are you kidding me?
0

anonymous@guest , March 1, 2009 12:03 AM

People should stop buying into the Mac fallacy that OSX holds any advantage over Windows or Linux. Most Mac users seem to think they have superior hardware under the hood too, and we all know that's not the case. OSX is not worth using(especially for the $3000 premium it adds to the hardware), it's nothing but a bunch of stuff Apple ripped-off from the open-source community, combined with their proprietary restrictions and crap support, and of course, their apple forum where they censor bug reports.

Display more comments

Apple/Psystar to have Confidentiality Agreement

Tom’s guide in the world