Slashdot Mirror
Apple Files Suit Against Psystar
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.
But it's Apple, so it's OK.
Apple is and always has been a hardware company. They fear competition on the hardware front, because that's their primary business product: overpriced "luxury" computers. (cue the fanboy bashings)
I was thinking the same thing, but Apple might have waited until they were sure they could win the suit.
"In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
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.
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.
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.
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
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.
"Coveted spot in the home computing world?" Care to expand on that?
Do I really have to? Seriously?
Let's face some real facts about Apple. Their spot in the home computing world comes largely from the cool facade that they've, literally, built for themselves. Apple has gone well out of it's way to force an image on the public. This image works for them because it appeals to people who think that computing is somehow not "fun" if it's not done on an Apple. Their commercials are some of the biggest misrepresentations of technology this side of Comcast it's not even funny. They've created fake problems for the consumer public to laugh about in an attempt to sway them from the PC/MS market.
Or do you think that those commercials are an accurate display of the Mac vs. PC world? If you do than you've been fooled by one of the great showmen of our times.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
[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.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
Because they remove any reference to negative comments, ignore upset customers, and generally sweep it all under the rug. Don't get me wrong, I like a good Mac, but their willingness to admit to being wrong or to having build buggy code is really non-existent.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
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)
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
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
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
I think the rating comes from the excellent support department they have, worldwide, which they can afford due to their high markup on items. Apple products are more expensive for a reason, not just because they can.
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.
All of them are fake problems? Which one of these is not a real problem:
Sure some of them are a bit outlandish, but they are based some grain of truth otherwise they wouldn't be funny.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Perhaps fanboyism is a major part of their consumer market success. I've yet to see anything as nice as Final Cut Pro on Windows. Nothing from Avid, Pinnacle, or anyone else comes close. The color matching between a Mac with a good monitor and print output makes any Adobe or other graphics software a much better value proposition on a Mac than on a Windows PC. The stock sound system on a Mac is superior to what you get with most PCs. As a media creation workstation, I'd say a Mac is far superior to a Windows PC. It's no SGI, but it doesn't carry the even higher premium, either. The professional market might have a trickle-down effect to simple fanboys, but many home Mac customers also use one at the office.
I prefer Linux for my work, as I'm mostly kept busy as a software developer with choice of platform and Linux is very nice for that. I do most of my gaming on Windows, and my accountant uses Windows because our chosen software only works (well, anyway) there. I have two used Macs, one with Linux and one with OS X. The OS X one is around for when I need to do some intense graphics work, as that's the platform for that. Some of my simpler stuff gets done on Linux or Windows, but tougher graphics stuff is on a Mac or outsourced to someone. Most of the people to whom I outsource graphics work also use primarily Macs for that.
+1 insightful *does not mean* "I agree with you"
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
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.
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.
Question everything
Wow... talk about putting words in my mouth. I really hate when people do that.
I never once said a word about Microsoft and most certainly did not say anything positive about them. I use Microsoft only because it is required at my job. I'd switch to a flavor of *nix at home, but I have family to consider (my wife is not comfortable with it, and I want to maintain our network and servers for both our benefit, not just my hacking wishes).
Also, I have read the Mac forums, and have kept up on the comments that suddenly vanish because a person actually reported a serious bug. I've seen frustrated users repeatedly post bug reports due to their post suddenly vanishing without comment, and I've seen Apple remove those posts and then present nothing but denials that there are any issues being covered up.
No company is perfect, and these are obviously fringe cases, but the facts remain.
They look so clean because they work so hard to look clean. They white wash the issues to make that 5-10% of disgruntled customers disappear from their public image.
Microsoft simply sues people into oblivion to ensure that no matter how crappy their software is, they still make money.
Linux has many of its own issues, such as driver problems, so many versions as to make one's head spin, and a small number of rude but vocal people on forums telling people to shut up and stop posting their n00b questions to the forum (not a great welcome to my friends who are trying it out for the first time, even though I understand the forum users' frustration).
So to recap:
- Don't put words in others' mouths.
- All OS's and all companies have problems, just different problems, and anyone who is a fanboi for anything just because they like it has no ability to think critically.
So Mac does it better than the rest... so what. They still whitewash their image to try and look as squeaky clean as they can while still putting out stuff that may not be over priced, but sure isn't competitively priced either. Meh. It's life. Get over it.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first