Slashdot Log In
Apple Files Suit Against Psystar
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jul 15, 2008 01:24 PM
from the grind-exceeding-fine dept.
from the grind-exceeding-fine dept.
Reader The other A.N. Other, among others, alerts us to the news that Apple has filed suit against Psystar, the unauthorized clonemaker. (We've been discussing Psystar from the start.) The suit alleges violation of Apple's shrink wrap license and trademarks, and also copyright infringement. News of the lawsuit, filed on July 3, first surfaced on a legal blog. There's speculation that the case has been sealed.
Related Stories
[+]
Apple: Psystar Offers $399 "OpenMac" Computer 615 comments
mytrip writes to tell us that Psystar has announced a new line of Intel-based computers that promise to run an unmodified version of Mac OS X "Leopard". Unfortunately almost immediately after the launch their website went down and as of this story remains unaccessible. "Astute readers may well hear this news and ask themselves if it doesn't sound like a Mac clone, something whose time came -- during Gil Amelio's tenure at Apple -- and went shortly after current CEO Steve Jobs assumed the helm at the company. [...] It definitely defies the EULA for Mac OS X, which specifies that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install the operating system on an Apple-branded computer. If you buy the $399 OpenMac, you can check the EULA yourself if you also buy the pre-install option, as the company includes a retail copy of Leopard with your purchase."
[+]
Apple: First Psystar Mac Clones Ship 466 comments
An anonymous reader writes "According to Gizmodo, Psystar has begun shipping its Macintosh clones, thus proving that the company is not a hoax. Initial impressions seem to be positive, though Software Update does not work."
[+]
Hardware: Psystar Open Computer Notes, Benchmarks and Video 304 comments
Engadget has had a chance to play around with Psystar's Open Computer and has a few things to say about the controversial machine. "Okay, so we've been playing with the Psystar Open Computer for a few hours now, and we've formed some early impressions and put together a short video of it in action. We haven't really tried to stress the system yet, but based on our other experiences with OSx86 machines, we're expecting things to generally go smoothly. That said, there are some definite rough patches and issues, all mostly having to do with the fact that OS X isn't really built for this hardware."
[+]
Apple: Mac Cloner Psystar Ships First Service Pack 468 comments
Preedit writes "Not only is Mac clone maker Psystar continuing to defy Apple's ban on third-party Leopard installations, it's supporting the hardware with updates. Psystar Mac clones shipped as of Monday will include a 'service pack' that features fixes for a range of problems, some of them inherent in Apple's own software, according to InformationWeek. The fixes address a range of troubles, from glitches in Apple's Time Machine backup feature to quirks in the Keyboard Viewer and Character Palette entries in Leopard's system preferences menu. There's also support for the latest version of Java and other updates. According to the story, by offering a full menu of support, Psystar appears to be daring Apple to attempt to enforce provisions in the Leopard license agreement that forbid third-party installations and sales." We've been discussing Psystar clones for a while.
[+]
Mac Clone Maker Psystar Files For Bankruptcy 366 comments
StikyPad was one of several readers letting us know that Psystar has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. We've discussed the Mac clone maker's battles with Apple extensively. The company apparently has over $250,000US in debt, and states that it cannot turn a profit in the current economy. "The Chapter 11 filing will temporarily suspend Apple's copyright infringement suit against Psystar, which is currently before the US District Court of Northern California. But once the bankruptcy protection is sorted out, the copyright case will resume." And PC Mag is reporting that, on the other side of the Atlantic, two new clone companies are just getting started. Like PsyStar, FreedomPC and RussianMac promise to deliver PCs with OS X preloaded.
[+]
Psystar Claims Apple Forgot To Copyright Mac OS 648 comments
Preedit writes "Mac cloner Psystar is claiming in new court papers that Apple's copyright suit against it should be dismissed, because Apple has never filed for copyright protection on Mac OS X 10.5 with the US Copyright Office. Infoweek is reporting that the claim, if it holds up, could open the door for third-parties to enter the Mac market without fear of legal action from Apple. In its latest set of allegations, Psystar is also accusing Apple of bricking Macs that don't run on genuine Apple hardware." We've been following the Psystar-Apple imbroglio since the beginning.
[+]
Psystar Antitrust Claim Against Apple Dismissed 256 comments
CNet has a report that a federal judge has dismissed Psystar's antitrust suit against Apple. Observers had said that the counter-suit embodied the Mac clone-maker's best chance of prevailing and staying in business. We've been following Psystar and the dueling lawsuits since the beginning.
[+]
Psystar Will Countersue Apple 1084 comments
An anonymous reader sends us to CNet for news that Apple clone maker Pystar plans to countersue Apple. We discussed Apple's suit last month. "Mac clone maker Psystar plans to file its answer to Apple's copyright infringement lawsuit Tuesday as well as a countersuit of its own, alleging that Apple engages in anticompetitive business practices. Miami-based Psystar... will sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, saying Apple's tying of the Mac OS to Apple-labeled hardware is 'an anticompetitive restraint of trade,' according to [an] attorney... Psystar is requesting that the court find Apple's EULA void, and is asking for unspecified damages."
Submission: Apple files suit against Psystar by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Apple: Psystar Crushed In Court 640 comments
We've been following the case of Mac cloner Psystar for some time now. Apple was just handed a summary judgement over Psystar, and as usual Groklaw has the scoop. Here is the order (PDF), though PJ supplies it in text form at the link above. "Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. ... It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal. Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse. ... So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum. The court asked for briefs on that subject. In short, Psystar is toast." Reader UnknowingFool adds, "There are still issues to be decided but they are only Apple's allegations: breach of contract, induced breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution; trade dress infringement, state unfair competition, and common law unfair competition. Even if Psystar wins all of them, it is unlikely to help them very much."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Interesting)
...that it took Apple this long to get the legal ball rolling on this!
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:4, Insightful)
I was thinking the same thing, but Apple might have waited until they were sure they could win the suit.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:4, Interesting)
Or had to.
Had this clone company flopped Apple could have walked away without ever lifting a finger. Now Steve Jobs has to pull the same kind of antics that Microsoft was endlessly bashed for.
After all, Apple likes to play it off like the cool slacker who has everything just work out in the end. It's going to look bad if they need to kick some ass to keep their coveted spot in the home computing world. It's going to make for a great Mac Vs. PC commercial, I'm sure.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is the same company who has repeatedly sent threatening legal letters to teenage bloggers and such. They also clearly violated their deal with Apple records, and then went on the legal offensive like they were victims.
Apple certainly isn't afraid to use their lawyers. My guess is that they wanted Pystar to make some profits to the lawsuit would make financial sense.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's all marketing then why does Apple have the highest consumer satisfaction rates in the entire industry?
If their products were crap, or even equivalent, consumers would not speak so highly of them, for so long after their purchases.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's a conspiracy. All those 3rd party market survey companies, they're in on the whole thing.
Ok then. Can't argue with that
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because people don't feel as bad when they feel they've wasted $10 than when they feel they've wasted $1000, so of course Apple consumers won't admit to their dissatisfaction as easily as, say, Dell customers. Yes, even to themselves.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's all marketing then why does Apple have the highest consumer satisfaction rates in the entire industry?
If their products were crap, or even equivalent, consumers would not speak so highly of them, for so long after their purchases.
So you would think. But, a couple things play against that.
1. Customers *expect* that an Apple will be a different experience than, say, a Windows machine. As a result, they're expectations are already geared towards, "This is going to be a good experience." As a result, they are more likely to have a good experience.
2. Face it - Apple products are expensive. Another psychological response that people have is that once they invest into something, they are more likely to stick with that something (and argue for that something) no matter how bad it is. So, it may be that someone spends $2000 on a new Mac, they have high expectations, they take it home and don't really like using it. However, they can't admit that because that means they made a bad decision. Hence...Macs are always awesome.
I know it sounds stupid. I thought so too until I read through the studies and performed some of my own in my work.
Never underestimate the power of someone to convince themselves of something if they don't want to be wrong or stupid.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me poot it this way. On blogspot, a systems security company ran a series of articles called "Mad as Hell" where they took a large portion of their user base, switched them to Macs for 6 months, and did an exhaustive TCO analysis (on a side note, macs came out to be much cheaper to operate, almost by half, than cheaper windows boxes once security, man hours, and more came into play, he had a nice spreadsheet you could plug your own numbers into as well if your rates differed).
The point I'm making here is there were several key (read VOCAL) employees that tried to refuse to use a mac. After 6 months, those same employees BOUGHT the mac they were using from the company, and REFUSED to switch back to a PC.
I've been a mac user since 1984 (and apple user since 1980). Every mac I or my family has owned is still working today, except an iMac G4 that got fried by lightning) including a Lisa bought in 84 and an original imac 128K in 85. Sure, we've had HDDs and power suplies blow out, and they've been repaired, but since every component in a mac is basiccaly the same as a PC, except the motherboard of which I have NEVER had one fail (including the hundred or so macs in an advertising firm I ran IT for).
Saying that people are too proud to complain about their high dollar purchases? Let me tell you, people who buy expensive stuff are VERY vocal about it's issues. They expect it to work, work well, and never die. Try asking a tech at a mercedes dealership... I'd like to see some of your references showing how this psychological phenomenon was measured...
besides, most macs, feature to feayture, are CHEAPER than equivolent Dell systems. Sure, you can't get a Mac for $499, but lets be honest, you can't get a real PC for that either. (A PC that doesn't meet the minimum requirements to run the OS pre-installed on it does not countas a real PC)
I dare you, go to Dell's site, configure matching systems to an iMac, Powerbook Pro, and Mini. The Dell One is about $150 more expensive than an iMac, their gaming notebooks (keep in mind the pro has a very high performance graphics engine and is intended to play Wow and run virtual machines, it's not a toy) are $300-500 more expensive than the mac pro, even their SFF desktop is more than $100 more than a mini. You can get a basic notebook for about $100 less than a standard macbook, with part to part equivolent perfornamce, but the Dell is more than a ound heavier if you do, or more expensive if you go lighter. Nothing Dell has compares to the Air.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an interesting factoid from the 1990s for you. Of all the auto brands in the General Motors family, Pontiac had the highest standards of production quality, while Cadillac had the lowest. And yet Pontiac had the lowest satisfaction ratings, while Cadillac had the highest.
My point is that "highest satisfaction" may have nothing to do with actual production quality, but with consumer perception of the product. And I say this as someone who prefers Macs to other systems (the same way I prefer New Balance sneakers to other shoes: because it fits me better).
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Image.
Apple has managed to conceptually sell the idea that owning apple products makes you better than someone who doesn't. And now they're literally selling it to you.
Most people this shallow have more money than sense (it overlaps with the SUV demographic) and thus will simply buy replacements when one breaks rather than filling out customer satisfaction surveys about the interaction with apple customer support that they didn't have.
But I believe in the company's ability to extract money from these people, which is why I own Apple stock. ;)
That's at least part of it. Who is more likely to fill out a survey? The customer that's a rabid fanboi getting a chance to express his undying love for the company that he throws wads of cash at? Or the one who is pissed off because their ipod just broke? Yes, I kinda slanted the questions a bit, but you get the idea.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not an anti-fanboy either. I'm simply rational, skeptical, and less susceptible to marketing than your average person.
I have a shuffle that I use at the gym almost daily. For a gym-music machine it's very hard to beat. Tiny, lightweight, clips on, stays out of the way, and plays music. Coupled with a pair of the cheapest, lightest, banded in-ear headphones I could find it's the perfect gym music player.
Oh, I did I forget to mention that the first shuffle broke within days? And nearly deafened me with its death scream? So as a customer, I'm pretty neutral myself. Sure, they overnighted me a replacement before I even shipped mine off, but I would have rather have one that worked the first time and didn't hurt my eardrums when it died.
So this particular customer is a little negative. Removing iPod download was reprehensible. And I've had two out of three ipods break. But they didn't give me a survey. And I probably wouldn't waste my time filling it out if they did.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
My company is evaluating moving over to mac book pros. We have put 25 of them into use and are tracking their rate of hardware failure against the 200 Dell Latitudes we have in play. Guess what- the mac books experience hardware failures 6x as often. Its not like there is one mac mac book pro either, MOST of them have had issues, including replacements.
Gee, funny how several different independent testing companies have completely the opposite results you do. Now who should I trust to accurately and impartially test equipment, Muadib or Consumer Reports... it's such a tough call.
Dell has come a long way with their laptops over the last year, from below average to one of the most reliable. They still are below average for desktops. And Apple, well they've been at the top for relaibility rates for years now. Buying Apple hardware can be problematic since their selection is small compared to all the PC vendors combined and for end users you'll end up paying for features you don't want (or don't think you want anyway). That said, they make some of the most reliable hardware you can buy.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Funny)
That is precisely why it's a good thing you don't have mod points.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless you try to Dual-Boot with BeOS... for free.. then their OEM EULA prohibits them from putting non-windows OSes in the boot screen or even SHOWING the user an icon to set up dual booting. That's what Fujitsu and Toshiba found out when BeOS wanted to be put on systems for free... and why no major player will sell dual-boot systems with the Linux pre-installed.
"You're welcome to sell any computer you want that has Windows on it, as long as you hand over the Windows license with the computer."
Correction If you sell Windows, you're ONLY allowed to sell Windows or even advertise Windows on those machines. (see above) You can sell machines with other OSes, but Microsoft want's (wanted) license fees for EVERY computer you sold (until it was declared illegal). So Microsoft is much WORSE... After all, only Apple sells Macs, they are not compelling any other company to do their bidding.
Parent
Re:It's mildly shocking... (Score:5, Informative)
I guess people forgot how they squashed the Mac clone market a decade ago by deciding to no longer license the ROM needed to run MacOS and thus putting many OEM companies out of business in one fell swoop.
I guess you forgot that the clone makers agreed not to go after Apple's market and invariably did. Apple's intention to allow clones was to expand where it couldn't, yet instead of expanding they went after what little of the market Apple had. After having being burnt last time, I am not sure that Apple wants to go through that again.
Parent
Competition Killer (Score:4, Insightful)
But it's Apple, so it's OK.
Re:Competition Killer (Score:5, Insightful)
Er. Apple is a) a very small player in a market locked up by Microsoft (for OSs), and b) just one of many players in the home computer hardware market. By tying their hardware so firmly to the OS, they aren't so much killing competition as denying themselves extra sales of the OS.
I'm all for holding Apple to account for their licensing policies, but hyperbole doesn't help.
Parent
Re:Competition Killer (Score:5, Funny)
That's a fair point. Not even I know whether my post is ironic or deadly serious.
Parent
Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Interesting)
Nah, they are a software company. The truth is that they can't be profitable selling Mac OSX at $150 a copy to compete with Windows, because they need a large developer team to keep pace with Microsoft and they have fewer unit sales.
So if Microsoft spends $1 billion on development, Apple probably needs to spend at least $500 million to keep up. Microsoft can distribute that cost among 20 million users at $50 each, charge $100 and make half profit. If Apple has 2 million users that comes out to $250 per user spent on development. (These aren't intended to be real numbers, just an approximation of the magnitude of the respective numbers).
Very few people would spend $500 on a boxed OSX so it's necessary to bundle with hardware that's intentionally kept unique, and lower-end models are limited in certain ways as a form of price discrimination. The uniqueness is part of the package, but it's also a way to obfuscate direct price comparisons.
Apple sells OSX UPGRADES at a reasonable price, but there's no way you'd catch them selling an "OEM" version anywhere close to $200 -- there'd be no ROI.
This is the only strategy a commercial OS vendor could resonably hope to use in a Microsoft-dominated market.
Parent
Come on, now (Score:4, Insightful)
That's like saying Rolls Royce is no more expensive than the equivalently specced $OTHER_BRAND.
When you include the maple wood trim, leather seats, huge engine, ... it all works out about the same.
Kind of silly, isn't it.
Now, what the point IS is that nowadays you can buy a crappy little CPU, some memory and an old graphics card and have PLENTY of horsepower for what you need to do.
And Apple don't make one of them.
So Apple are expensive. Because they don't do the cheaper end.
No reason why they can't, they just don't.
Parent
Re:Come on, now (Score:4, Funny)
...except there is none of that maple wood trim in an Apple.
The Apple is quite literally all of the innards of a Ford put into a prettier body style...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
Common fallacious argument.
It does not matter whether you can duplicate a Mac for less. What matters is, after you have settled on a spec you want, or found a Dell or HP you want, can you duplicate that for the same price from the Apple product line?
95% of the time you can't. This is what makes Apple a rip-off.
It would only matter that you could not duplicate a Mac cheaper, if the Mac spec were the starting point for shopping. It very rarely is.
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
People feeling ripped off is what makes Apple a rip-off. If you're happy with your Mac, and feel you got good value for it, you haven't been ripped off. If you're unhappy with your Windows/PC, and want a Mac to replace it, but can't find one with comparable specs, don't buy one and you won't be ripped off.
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:4, Insightful)
Go ahead and spec out a similar machine from Dell, HP, or Lenovo.
Last time I did that I was able to put together a machine comparable to a Mac Mini for about 50% of the price, and a Macbook for about 70% of the price. On average, the "Mac Tax" seems to be about 40% of the list price of a Mac.
I still bought the Mac mini and the Macbook Pro (thought that was tough, I could have gotten everything I actually wanted (hardware-wise) from a Macbook Pro for about the same price as the Macbook). When the choice is Windows vs UNIX-with-actual-applications, the Mac Tax is worth it. But it's still real.
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
You put together a MacMini for 50% of the price? There's only two companies out there I'm aware of that offer similar sized machines. Asus sell the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeBox, but it's a lot lower specced, and AOpen's mini PC, which I admit is a better deal, but it's no where near 50% of the price. My guess is that you forgot that being 6" by 6" by 2" and silent is a very very valuable feature.
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
You put together a MacMini for 50% of the price? There's only two companies out there I'm aware of that offer similar sized machines.
I specced a functionally equivalent machine, and even gave Apple a break by not including the cost of the external hard drive case, external powered USB hub, and power strip that made the total size of the Mac mini solution pretty much the same as the low profile desktop, but I *did* count the firewire card in the cost of the PC!
I am not counting "styling" (including the size of the Mac mini, the smooth white case on the Macbook, etc). Just function. Styling too often has negative value (eg, the Mac mini doesn't even provide enough power from USB to charge an iPod Shuffle).
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Funny)
I specced a functionally equivalent machine, and even gave Apple a break by not including the cost of the external hard drive case, external powered USB hub, and power strip that made the total size of the Mac mini solution pretty much the same as the low profile desktop, but I *did* count the firewire card in the cost of the PC!
I know just how you mean. The other day I was looking for a new bicycle. I wanted a bike that would not fold and looked at a Dahon folding bike, then gave Dahon a break by not including the cost of hiring some guy to weld the folding joints in place and it was still more expensive than regular bikes!
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Informative)
I've done it on machines that later were serviced under my AppleCare Protection Plan. Even though the person in the call center noticed my specs didn't match what they were at time of purchase they didn't try to weasel out by claiming a warranty violation.
The last time I sent my Powerbook G4 in for service, the problem was actually related to the cheap 3rd party ram I was using. They simply took it out, put it in a static bag, shipped everything back, and told me to re-install the original ram that shipped with the unit. No attempt was made to bill me for work not covered under the ACPP.
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Funny)
Did anyone else try to read that post as a poem?
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
What they lack are the super cheap entry level disposable junk...They do lack a moderate price expandable tower
So, hardware-wise, they only sell high end stuff. The thing with the high end is that you start getting diminishing returns. I build moderate towers for half what the high end computers would cost and get 75% of the performance at least, although often it's closer to 80% or 90%. From what I've seen, macs tend to fall later on the curve than I (and most people I know) like to hit, after the performance-per-dollar starts declining.
Of course, that's just my opinion, many people prefer to buy there, and for them macs are just fine.
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Interesting)
And finally, how successful would OS/X be if Apple sold it as software for any platform, Microsoft-style? It would be earth-shakingly successful, probably garnering 50% marketshare within one year. And probably making 10x more money than they do now.
They tried that before. It didn't work out too well. Also, you're wrong.
One of the strengths of OS X is that it runs on a limited, well-understood suite of hardware. Bugs are easier to fix, components are easier to tweak, and new features are more easily added. I do not, and never have, believed that Apple would be well served by opening up OS X. It's a tightly run ship (for the most part), and opening it up to all hardware would serve neither Apple nor end users.
Parent
Re:Don't want to dilute the elixir (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno if you've noticed or not, but Apple is the most arrogant company in computing. They will do the stupidest thing imaginable for a long, long time, before finally changing their ways and admitting that it was a bad idea. Look at how long it took them to drop the hockey puck mouse. Look at how long it took them to realize that they should make a mouse with more than one buttons. Look at how they still aren't making a real two-button mouse. Look at how long it took them to get with the program, and get on the same processor architecture as the rest of the world had been on for years.
Apple may one day sell OS X on other companies' hardware, but that point is years off, if it ever arrives, due to Apple's sheer overwhelming arrogance.
Parent
Wake up people (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is exactly what Microsoft would be if Bill Gate's father wasn't already a wealthy man. Do you think that Jobs or Gates are very much different?
One interesting note, however, Apple uses the courts as an offensive mechanism more often than Microsoft. Microsoft tends to bombard problems with cash projectiles until resistance is bought off. Apple sues you for even talking about them.
All multi-national corporations suck.
Re:Wake up people (Score:4, Insightful)
Wake up to what?
Few people have any illusions that Apple is "not evil" in some sense that makes them different from any other company.
But this case has nothing to do with being evil or being good.
Apple and Microsoft have a completely different set of business models. It's not just that they're smaller, the whole revenue model is radically different: Apple makes their money from hardware sales. This is probably the biggest reason that Apple's still in business: they're not fighting Microsoft on Microsoft's playing field.
Anyway, they have to sell hardware to do that. So they license the software in a way that drives hardware sales. So they kind of don't have an alternative: go up against Microsoft when death is on the line, or sue someone who's blatantly violating your license.
Parent
Guess we get to see just how far EULAs will go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the clause in the EULA that you will only run the OS on a genuine MAC, there is nothing here. So I guess we get to see just how far a shrink wrap EULA will go in the court. I'm not entirely certain that this is a good case for it, but it's not one of the worst.
Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit just ruled for Blizzard in their interpretation of a EULA violation negating the validity of license of legally purchased software & CA is in the 9th Circuit.
Re:Guess we get to see just how far EULAs will go. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Thankfully... (Score:5, Informative)
The 9th Circuit Court is the most over-turned court.
False. In fact, the 1st, 2nd, and 10th circuits had 100% of their decisions heard by the supreme court reversed in 04-05. The 9th had 84%.
In terms of pure numbers, yes, this may be true. But the 9th circuit also hears comparatively more cases than the others, as well. In terms of percentages, this is an oft-repeated but rarely-documented fallacious statement. The only time in recent history when they were the most overturned was in the 96-97 session.
It's also somewhat of a silly statistic, given that the supreme court rarely hears cases that it doesn't expect to overturn - if the general consensus is agreement, why would they hear the appeal unless it's important enough to "reinforce" the original court's decision?
Parent
a boy can dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be nice if they fought this? If they said, hey, we bought your software, we can install it on whatever we want. And then, in my imaginary world, a judge sees their point of view and rules that once you purchase a piece of software, it's yours to do with as you please.
Re:a boy can dream (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, they do. Look at what just happened to Dell. Their EULA stated that you had to agree to arbitration, but a judge ruled that it was invalid. Just because a company writes something down on a piece of paper and sticks that piece of paper into a product that you buy, doesn't make it necessarily enforceable.
Parent
Not a bad business model... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Create a line of Mac clones.
2. Sell them to an unwitting public.
3. Have Apple file suit.
4. Pay bonuses to all the execs.
5. Declare bankruptcy.
6. Shut down all operations.
Guess what... Everyone who bought a Psystar is left totally unsupported (which includes the all-important security hole fixes) and the execs made a bundle... Now, could Apple go after the execs personally for copyright infringement or (the soon-to-be-defunct) Psystar? Ironically, there was no consumer fraud here--businesses go under all the time and anyone who bought a Psystar would have had to know that Apple wouldn't support them...
not sealed (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a slightly more informative (less speculative) posting: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9328 [zdnet.com]
So excited for a legal judgment (Score:5, Interesting)
I really hope this goes to trial and a judge rules on it. Partly because I think the judge would rule that Apple can't do what they're trying to do with their EULA, but even if the judge sides with them, it's still a clarification of the law.
I don't like existing in the murky world of armchair people positing what is and isn't legal. Plus, if it goes Psystar's way, I doubt it would be too long before larger manufacturers got on board. Once something becomes legal, corporations want all over it (well, I guess that applies to profitable things).
The EULA violation is insignificant (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the Slashdot hordes like to bitch and moan about EULAs -- not without cause, mind you -- but the EULA violation in this case might as well be a footnote.
If all Psystar had done was violate the EULA clause that said "hey, you won't do anything to make this run on non-Apple hardware", then this case would be about how enforceable that clause is.
Unfortunately, Psystar did much more egregious things than violate a silly EULA term. They, by their own public admission, modified a copyright-protected work, then redistributed these modifications without a license to do so. And they did it for commercial purposes, no less. Even under the traditional terms of copyright (as opposed to the mutilated corporate-serving terms we have now), that's just not cricket.
On top of that copyright infringement, they also noodle-headedly used at least one Apple trademark (the "Leopard" name and mark) to promote the sale of hardware and software.
I will be absolutely stunned if Apple doesn't prevail on the Copyright and Trademark parts of their case, though I do hope that the judge will find that a license to run software on a particular kind of hardware is not binding.
(Not a lawyer, this isn't advice -- I do know a thing or two about the law)
Re:No surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
It takes a lot of preparation for them to reach this point and file proceedings, consider:
* exec hears about it, if it were Microsoft chairs would be thrown ... ...
* passed to the legal team to see if Apple have a case
* legal sign off
* paralegals do the groundwork, scrutinizing the EULA etc.
*
*
* case is filed in court?
In the past I've tried bringing legal action for trademark infringement, and the whole process just to get things started can take months and months especially if you're in a large organization with N-layers of forms & approvals required for anything like this.
Parent
Re:Demand for OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
[Apple has] the exclusive right to distribute [their] OS. As they should ... Now some small fry entrepreneur is ... selling PCs with OS X loaded on them. Despite the overwhelming legal precedent against them (I don't know of any official retailer that has gotten away with installing pirated versions of Windows on commodity PCs...
You seem to be confusing Psystar's behavior with piracy. They pay for their copies of OS X. Apple doesn't have a discount distribution center for their OS (for obvious reasons), so Psystar pays full retail price for each copy of OS X that they sell, and they use their right-of-first-sale rights to then resell that copy to their customers.
Yesterday Slashdot had a story about how it was judged that loading software in RAM is equivalent to distributing software. Psystar is loading it onto the HDD, so this ruling might be different. Of course, you could argue that Psystar is then distributing the HDD, but as mentioned before, right-of-first-sale gives them this right without the need for a license.
It's been a while, but I really hope for a sane copyright-related ruling this time. I'm not holding my breath.
Parent
Re:Demand for OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
They have the exclusive right to distribute that OS. ... Normally, I'm against harsh "intellectual property" laws, but this is Apple's investment in a huge competitive advantage, and they've earned it.
Psystar buys legal copies OS X to ship with its units.
Apple tolerates a few hackers jumping through hoops to get it running on commodity PCs, as long as that means they lose maybe 0.1% of their potential customers.
Actually, they are losing far more than that. I won't buy a Mac because they won't make one with the specs and form factor I want. I'm interested in an 'imac tower', and a 12" macbook with a decent video card, gps, and a cellular data option. (I'd gladly give up the internal cdrom for an express card slot. I'd also be interested in a tablet-mac... and the axiotron is pretty sweet, but it would be even better if using the stylus was optional, the price wasn't so high, and the little hiccups like auto-rotating the screen based on orientation were worked out.
My other big wish list for OSX is virtualization. I'd pay $350-400 (up two twice the retail price for OSX) for a copy that I could legally run in VMWare on non-apple hardware.(Yes I know leopard server allows for virtualization, but only on apple hardware [which I don't like], and it costs $500.)
Despite the overwhelming legal precedent against them (I don't know of any official retailer that has gotten away with installing pirated versions of Windows on commodity PCs), they figure it's worth the risk.
What legal precendent. No one has -ever- done anything like this before. Pirated copies of windows are not remotely in the same category as legally purchased copies of os x.
If they argue that they paid for every shrink-wrapped copy of OS X, then they stand a moderately better chance of succeeding.
There's no "if" about it.
The -only- question is whether or not the eula that requires the os be run on apple brand hardware will stick or not.
And its a VERY complicated question.
On apple's side:
They have the EULA in place that clearly forbids it. That sure beats trying to deal with this on pure copyright.
They have a dubious legal precedent in the blizzard case that suggests that violating an eula makes an in computer, or even in RAM copy an unauthorized copy.
They also have the DMCA which can come into play with its protection of 'technical measures'. After all, Apple, doesn't just have the EULA, the code actually tries to check the hardware, and the psystar people have to defeat it to install OSX. This itself may be illegal.
On Psystar's side:
we have first sale doctrine - they bought OSX. They can do what they want with it, including resell it. There was an ebay related case against the makers of autocad I think over this... someone was selling used copies of autocad, and the courts ruled this was legal under first sale, despite autocad's protestation that it was against the EULA. (This is also potentially a counter precedent to the blizzard one too... as it ruled the first sale doctrine rights couldn't be stripped by the shrink wrapped EULA.)
We also have an exception in the DMCA that provides for deafeating copyright measures for interoperability. Clearly Psystar could argue that they only modified OSX to make it interoperate with the non-apple hardware. There is a printer related precedent that might come into play, where some printer manufacturer tried to prevent a competitor from releasing replacement ink via a DMCA lawsuit, and lost, because the competitor had reverse engineered the printer software to figure out how to get their cartridges to 'interoperate' with the printer. This is particularly salient because it shows the DMCA interoperation clause being successfully used in a case where the OEM specifically sought to prevent interoperation... indeed the entire point of the drm was to lock out competition. -- And they lost.
Psystar also potentially can continue to operate simply by ceasin
Parent