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.
...that it took Apple this long to get the legal ball rolling on this!
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)
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.
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...
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Much of Apple's success is due to the fact that they have what is IMNHO by far the best consumer OS on the planet. They have the exclusive right to distribute that OS. As they should: they put up a sizable investment of human and technological resources to build it. Normally, I'm against harsh "intellectual property" laws, but this is Apple's investment in a huge competitive advantage, and they've earned it.
Naturally with their "monopoly" on OS X distribution, they're able to skim off the top and limit distribution and the types of computers (ex cheap minitowers) that can run it. This has all kinds of people frustrated, as I'm sure some in the Slashdot crowd are. 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.
Now some small fry entrepreneur is willing to take the risk of tapping into the rest of the 99.9% of the OS X market by 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), they figure it's worth the risk. If they argue that they paid for every shrink-wrapped copy of OS X, then they stand a moderately better chance of succeeding.
Still, I imagine there's massive unsatisfied demand for OS X, which seems to be what MacOSX86 and Pystar are all about.
This space left intentionally blank.
Here is a slightly more informative (less speculative) posting: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9328
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.
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).
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.
you better order one now before an Apple-filed injunction is approved... not only will you get a cheap & better mac clone, you'll also give them the cash they need for their legal fun. better act fast!
More like "Sue Predictably".
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
There's a little more to it now. It sounds more like they're suing because they took the Leopard update, opened it up, modified files in it, and re-released it for themselves. I think they're considering that a copyright infringement.
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?
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
Apple: I'm not going to sell you this software unless you agree to only run it on Genuine Apple hardware.
Customer: okay, I agree.
I think you got that out of order.
Salesperson: Here you go!
Customer: Thanks! (opens shrink wrap, starts install, reads EULA)
Customer: I want to return this opened product because I do not agree to the terms of the EULA.
Salesperson: fsck you.
For once I'd like to see a mature rebuttal against the current successful state of Macintosh that doesn't have to revert to the term "fanboi". If you can do that, I'd give your arguments credit. Until then, your insistence on using "fanboi" shows that you have no real credibility behind your otherwise immature claims.
What's funny is how no one mentions that Apple hasn't made a single legal move against the OSX86 project.
They haven't made a peep, not a disapproving statement nor threats of legal action. The ONLY reason Apple cares is because Psystar is riding their name and software in an attempt to make a cheap buck, and would likely push the support issues off to Apple who will take a black mark for refusing to support hardware they had no hand in.
Apple doesn't give a damn about you running OS X on your hackintosh, because you're part of a small audience and are probably aware that you get exactly nothing in terms of support. Apple does give a damn about companies like Psystar, even if their copies are legitimately purchased they'd have -nothing- if not for Apple.
And Apple was fully within their rights to kill off the clone market. They simply refused to continue licensing MacOS out to 3rd parties because, as Jobs duly noted, they were gutting Apple's bottom line. All the profit of the hardware sales but none of the software development expense. Continuing to do so would have been a critical error that would likely have killed Apple and MacOS entirely. It was a smart, if vicious, move.
There's already precedent, and it doesn't go well for psystar:
There were legal mac clones at one point in time. When Jobs came back onboard, they released a new version of the OS whose license specified that you couldn't run it on unauthorized hardware (and to be authorized, the clone makers had a very high royalty to pay). The companies who went out of business due to that had just as much at stake as psystar. They didn't win then, and psystar isn't going to win now.
Sorry, boys, but you have to follow the terms of the license.
Frankly, I don't see how (from a legal POV) much difference between Apple's license only allowing you to run on Apple hardware, versus the GPL3's anti-tivoization clause.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
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.
A year or so? That was an ergonomic problem to be sure.
Look at how long it took them to realize that they should make a mouse with more than one buttons.
They SHIPPED with a one button mouse for a while. But all along, they have supported multiple buttons on mice. Even now the user has to turn on the second button, so it's not like they changed as much as you think they have.
Apple simply tries to ship with what they consider to be the best configuration for the user buying that system. There's no arrogance in that, as long as the user is easily able to make other choices that are better for them. Even the first OS X allowed you to hook up a Logitech USB mouse with any number of buttons.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think the problem will come down to what is Apple hardware. Is an Airport Extreme an Apple branded device, or is it a Broadcom 43xx card or Atheros 5424 card with an Apple sticker on it? Is the sound card a "High Definition Apple Sound Card" that's built into the "MacBook Logic Board" or is it just an HD Realtek card (CX1988, etc) on an Intel motherboard with a pick Apple sticker on it? I know for a fact that on Macbooks, they use an Intel processor and motherboard with EFI instead of good ol BIOS, a Realtek Card, a Broadcom wireless card (Essentially the same thing as a Dell Truemobile 1390 or an Atheros 5424 card), A Yukon Gigabit Ethernet card (88E8053), with standard devices hooked to it (hard drive, etc) via ICH7. This is all built inside of a Quanta laptop casing.
This is what Apple hardware is. Some may still see it as different, but I sure don't since my dell laptop has almost identical specs. And since Apple uses such an open source friendly license (http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/) I have easily ported linux and freebsd drivers to work on OS X. I have purchased a retail copy of leopard. I guess I am breaking the law, right? No, just the EULA. Why am I doing this? Simply to bring a good, friendly, stable, unix OS to my own computer. None of this requires pirating software
FYI, we've already completed a way to install OS X on a PC without altering the original Leopard retail Disc. So people can essentially go out, buy a copy of Leopard, and install it on a PC after booting off of a USB device that loads up the kernel extensions for their own PC hardware. All open source, all following APSL.
Also note that this is all homebrew stuff, none is earning any money off of it, and most of it is open source. This is why Psystar isn't really supported at all when it comes to the people who are putting their heart into this project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionable This is the reason.
I assume you also just buy the upgrades of Creative Suite and Office even though you've never owned those before. After all you paid for something, so you should be able to do as you damn will please.
The retail box is an UPGRADE. Now, perhaps if folks don't mind paying $300-$400 for a FULL RETAIL COPY, then Apple might consider selling it to you w/o regards to you already having Mac OS on your machine.