Slashdot Mirror
Apple Suit Demands That Psystar Recall OpenMacs
Da'Man writes "The Psystar saga takes another series of turns. Not only is the website down but an examination of the suit filed by Apple shows that the Cupertino Goliath wants Psystar to recall all Open Computer and OpenServ systems sold by the company since April. It seems that Steve Jobs is out to totally sink Psystar and put an end to Mac clones."
Notice that Apple filed approx a day after the WoW copyright decision. If there was some doubt on Psystar beating Apple on the validity of of the EULA...it is pretty safe to say that Psystar is about to get slapped down.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Showing a remarkably high trading value?
Yes, IBM "got out of the game". No, it was not necessarily bad for them.
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
Ok, how about the thousands of us who demand a headless, non-pro, non-laptop computer, with actual desktop/decent parts in it?
Mac mini: piss-poor GPU and low-capacity/slow LAPTOP 2.5" drive in a DESKTOP computer?
iMac: fuckin' all-in-one computer with stupid glossy screens and low quality LCDs with not even average GPU choices.
Mac Pro: are you fucking insane? I don't need that much power (and even the GPU options for that one are ridiculous).
Make the Mac mini taller/bigger, put a 3.5" drive and a half-decent GPU in it (the ability to run Starcraft II and Diablo III at medium settings) and it WILL sell. A lot. You have no fuckin' idea how much people loathe all-in-one computers.
Has the price changed that much? Last I looked, Apple was actually competitive (within $100, sometimes cheaper) with commodity hardware. The only difference is, you can't get a Mac without the bells and whistles.
In other words, you get exactly what you pay for, which includes $1k of hardware you don't actually need.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
IBM only produced the hardware, Microsoft produced the software and look where they are now...
Apple produce both, by your reckoning Apple would be selling about the same level of hardware that they are now, but selling millions of units of software.
Also when you talk of retaining control, look at the absolutely farcical situation with AmigaOS 4. They are trying so hard to retain control that they've pushed away any customers they might have ever had.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Looks like I was right in my comments from yesterday--but I never figured they would fall apart so quickly! Build a product that might infringe but would definitely piss someone off, make & deliver a bunch of orders, pay bonuses, declare bankruptcy (how long until Psystar does this???), and disappear... Take the money & run. The funny thing is that if they fulfilled their orders, they might be in the clear from criminal prosecution and their customers are the ones that got exactly what they paid for (sans warranty once they file for bankruptcy)... Excluding the execs, who might be sitting on a beach somewhere, everybody loses--including Apple.
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
Since Apple's entire legal argument hinges on the fact that their EULA states that OSX can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware, it will be interesting to see if the courts uphold such restrictions in EULA's, or the existence of EULA's at all. Psystar makes an interesting argument that Honda can't make you sign a EULA telling you that you can only drive on Honda-approved roads, so why should Apple be able to control what systems OSX is installed on? Is there any precedent here? Has the legality of EULA's ever been put to the test in court?
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
I suspect Apple is every bit as evil as Microsoft, just less successful.
I'll try not to pull a troll moment here either, but I don't find anything particularly innovative about either the iPhone or iPod apart from the concept of marketing high-tech to a non-geek demographic. To a massive extent that concept alone determines the direction which the technology has to follow.
If I bought something, it's now mine (the hardware anyway). I doubt Pystar can actually repossess any of the boxes. The entire demand by Apple is pretty silly. Apple's copyright claims can't possibly cover the possession of physical hardware. Very bizarre. I think Apple only has a claim against Psystar itself over copyright infringement (the distribution of hacked Apple patches). Personal use of OS X in breach of Apple's license would have to be an issue that Apple would have to deal with on a per user basis, which I doubt they are willing to do.
I think that in legal terms it's the fact that the software is pre-installed. If they just sold the hardware and it happened to be OSX compatible then there's absolutely nothing Apple could do (presuming they've not infringed any patents in the process). They're effectively reselling the OS and using it to advertise another product (the hardware). To stick with the car analogy, it'd be like selling a tiny little car with a Bugatti Veyron engine and advertising it on that basis. Bugatti would (probably quite rightly) complain that the cooling systems etc simply weren't designed to work with a small car, and the engine would probably break down, damaging their reputation in the process.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
The only thing is, it's not really the same thing since Psystar isn't an End User. So Honda might not be able to able to make you sign an agreement saying you'll only drive on Honda approved roads (but I don't know, maybe they can?), but Honda could probably make their dealerships sign an agreement saying they won't engage in certain business practices. The analogy isn't perfect, but analogies rarely are.
Because the thing is that Psystar is installing altering the software, copying it, and then distributing the copies. Hence, this isn't an issue of EULAs, but blatant copyright infringement unless they have a license. If the EULA specifically allowed this, they could try to use the EULA to protect themselves, but the EULA makes no provisions that allow them to do this.
Of course, IANAL, so I could be wrong.
Instead of a WinMo device going into portrait mode by hitting a button or opening a slide-out keyboard, it has a tilt sensor, the Wiimote had one before the iPhone. Instead of a single touch, you can use 2 fingers, like in that Tom Cruise movie with seeing the future. Say it how it is, using terms like "multitouch" glorifies a rather arbitrary concept.
Innovation is 90% efficiency solar panels or 100 MPG cars or even the company that invented the hardware that makes multitouch work, something that doesn't exist, not utilizing things that are already available.
What Apple does is polish concepts, just like Blizzard. Blizzard didn't invent the RTS or MMO but they polished them into something really good (actually I hate WoW, but it is what it is).
Call it what you like, but handheld multitouch is fairly novel, and the automatic screen-turning isn't too shabby either.
IIRC these ideas and more where being thrown around on the OpenMoko mailing list before the iPhone was announced.
While I'm not going to dispute Apples success in putting everything together, I find it hard to credit them with technological innovation when these ideas were being casually thrown around by a bunch of random geeks on a mailing list.
By restricting the realm of what is an Apple device, this can be seen as an attempt to guarantee consistent quality.
Precisely. Which is why I say their marketing concepts are more innovative than their tech.
Actually, the licence is binding, since the product can be returned, for full refund without penalty, as long as the software seal inside the package remains intact. Since the Licence agreement can be read withough installing or operning the software, there is a clear path for the user to take to refuse its terms.
Further, many products have not only use restrictions from the manufacturer, but under penalty of federal law, the use of certain devices in certain circumstances can be prevented. The FCC has a large part in that with anything that could potentially cause interference. The DMV has a lot to do with how a car can be used, loaded with cargo, and more.
In a more direct comparison, it have been held up in court that a software vendor can sue successfully for the use of non-commercial, or student only software in commercial spaces. Also, the resale of licenses for system-specific use, like anti virus and other subscription based packages, has also been protected.
In this case, the use of Apple's software on non-apple branded equipment would mean that the DRM functionality of that software (The requirements of an EFI firmware as well as a special ROM circuit) had been defeated, and thus is a violation of the DMCA as well as the software licence agreement.
Since the purchaser has 1) been ninformed of the licence, 2) been given an opportunity to refuse it without penalty, and 3) agree to the terms by performing a physical action (breaking the seal or clicking accept), then at that point it is no longer a licence, but a contract between parties. Licences can also be revolked, at will, by the issuer, with or without reason or provocation, and the continued use would thus be unlicenced and illegal. Apple has simply unlicenced every Psystar system.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Innovation is 90% efficiency solar panels or 100 MPG cars or even the company that invented the hardware that makes multitouch work...
I think that's a very limited definition of "innovation."
A better definition might be "solving a problem through the novel application of technology". The technology might be completely new, or it might be existing technology used in a new way. Either one can be innovative.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Umm, no. Microsoft would have every right to go after vendors who were including unlicensed, modified versions of Windows in their systems. How is this any different?
Psystar buys a license of OS X for each machine they sell? Apple may claim that the copies aren't licensed since they violate the EULA, but US copyright law doesn't limits copyright holders rights to prevent installation of software. Furthermore, the doctrine of first sale gives Psystar the right to resell OS X.
Call it what you like, but handheld multitouch is fairly novel, and the automatic screen-turning isn't too shabby either.
There's really no competition if one is comparing Apple to IBM in terms of innovation. In one corner, you have a neat interface based on multi-touch (they didn't invent the multi touch sensor itself). In the other corner you have the hard disk.
SJW n. One who posts facts.