Psystar Claims Apple Forgot To Copyright Mac OS

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.

Comments

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

What
the
fuck

Re:WTF

[afidel]

It doesn't matter, under the Berne Convention and the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 you do not need to register your work to hold copyright and have protections under copyright law. The only remedy not open to Apple is attorneys fees and statutory damages if they didn't register, since their main goal is a permanent injunction I don't think they care.

Re:WTF

[Whiteox]

WTF does OMG stand for?

Re:WTF

[wild_berry]

Read a comment to TFA. It links to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr, which has the following line: "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin."

AIUI, if PsyStar have rightly identified that Apple failed to register the version of Mac OS X sold by PsyStar within 3 months of publication, then Apple can't bring the suit.

Re:WTF

[GauteL]

"AIUI, if PsyStar have rightly identified that Apple failed to register the version of Mac OS X sold by PsyStar within 3 months of publication, then Apple can't bring the suit."

Not correct. Please read your own sources better. As your link clearly states: "Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright."

However as the grand parent state (and your link confirms) Apple can't file for statutory damages or attorney fees unless they filed the registration within 3 months.

Another quote from your link:
"Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration."

Re:WTF

[mweather]

Registration may be made at any time, but it MUST come before the lawsuit.

Re:WTF

[mweather]

One reason proprietary OS vendors might refrain from registering their copyright; is the need to reveal source code to the copyright office.

And in 70+ years, when that code is no longer subject to copyright, it may be available to the public (in printed form)...

You mean like this? http://www.apple.com/opensource/

Berne convention?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought since the US joined the Berne convention in the 80s or 90s, registration with the copyright office is not required...

Re:Berne convention?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I thought since the US joined the Berne convention in the 80s or 90s, registration with the copyright office is not required...

It is required if you want statutory damages (you know, those crazy numbers like $25,000 per song downloaded or whatever it is the RIAA threatens people with). Otherwise the worst you can sue for is actual damages - in this case the cost of a copy of OSX for each copy made.

It sure would be funny if it is true.

Re:Berne convention?

[WiiVault]

I wonder what that will mean since Psystar buys actual OS X disks? Would Apple sue for the "damage" of not selling the hardware?

Re:Berne convention?

[gruntled]

Sigh. From the US Copyright Office:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

        * Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

        * Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

Re:Berne Convention?

[corsec67]

Not trying to flame, but by this argument, the Berne Convention should render the GPL null and void.

No, the GPL has most of its power because copyrights are automatic. The GPL is an optional license that you can use to copy the program. If you don't obey the license, it is a copyright violation, since copyrights are automatic.

Re:Berne convention?

[im_thatoneguy]

This is correct. But I'm not certain you can claim "a copy of OSX" is the damage per infringement.

Psystar in this case is using legally purchased copies of OSX.

Apple would be forced to disclose the ACTUAL *loss* that they sustain on each OS sale as the split between Retail and Development. So if every copy of OSX is sold at a $100 loss in order to push hardware sales they'd be forced to disclose that amount.

Re:Berne convention?

[kithrup]

Apple is claiming that the boxed copies are upgrade versions, and not the original license. So "actual damages" would still include whatever cost Apple claims (or could convince a court of 8-)) for the original license.

Re:Berne convention?

[MidnightBrewer]

So the copyright law basically says that you're protected automatically, but that the protection isn't worth anything until you actually register for protection? Nice. Good to know.

Re:Berne convention?

[JebusIsLord]

I'll be really surprised if Apple doesn't agree to simply make a deal with Psystar to manufacture clones for a licensing fee. It isn't that radical - Apple licensed Mac clones back in the late 80s - early 90s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#The_first_Macintosh_clones ). My uneducated guess is that Psystar has been negotiating for a licensing agreement for a long time, and then calculated that an outright court battle would land them a better deal than paying the fees initially suggested by Apple.

That or they're a fly-by-night outfit.

Re:Berne convention?

[fishbowl]

>No, the automatic protection allows for criminal prosecution. If you want to sue yourself you have to register.

Sort of. The trouble you'd run into, is that the law allows Apple to make that registration at *any time*, like, say, on the morning of your hearing.
Even without the statutory damages, they *can* sue you, and there is no limit to what they can ask for as damages. It's good to have things registered because that constitutes "Notice", which provides the plaintiff with an automatic advantage in terms of preponderance of evidence,

The misconception all over the thread, is that without the right to seek statutory damages, Apple would be limited in the amount of civil damages they could seek. This is untrue, and I can assure you that the amount of "actual damages" that Apple's very expensive and capable legal team would confront you with over OSX, would utterly dwarf even the "per infringement" maximum of statutory damages. And even if they sought statutory damages, which they still would do, that would basically amount to nothing but a "tip" on top of the really stupendous civil damages, which would seek liquidation and civil forfeiture of, 100% of your assets. Willful and knowing copyright infringement on an institutional scale is really not a good idea, registration or not.

IANALBIHSLAWITF, consult a lawyer before you do something boneheaded like putting yourself on the defendant end of a civil suit with Apple.

Re:Berne convention?

[mstone]

The unit cost of OS X is irrelevant.

Apple doesn't sell OS X for non-Apple-branded hardware, and Psystar doesn't sell copies of OS X per se. Psystar isn't taking any money out of Apple's pocket in a software market for 'copies of OS X', because no such market exists.

The place where Psystar is taking money out of Apple's pocket is in hardware. The difference between "an Apple-branded computer running OS X" and "a Psystar-branded computer running OS X" is the machine itself, not the OS. Therefore, the damage to Apple is the cost of equivalent hardware less the cost of one retail copy of OS X. Apple's retail computer prices are public knowledge, so adding up the damages would be trivial.

That's only where Psystar's barbed-wire enema begins, though. The big money will be in 'brand dilution'.

Apple's brand is immensely valuable, and Psystar has been trying to redefine it. Apple has always presented itself as a company that sells "the whole widget." They've spent a lot of money in every aspect of their business, from R&D to manufacturing, to sales and support, pushing the idea that a box from Apple is a single unit that Just Works (TM). Then along comes Psystar, telling everyone that Apple is really just a component vendor, whose OS division is just like Microsoft and whose hardware division is just like Dell. If you want an "Apple compatible computer," you can pick and choose pieces from any vendors you want.

A large part of this case revolves around whether Psystar has a legitimate right to tell the whole world what business Apple is in. At present, it looks like the answer to that is a big, fat "No."

If a court rules that Psystar has indeed been blowing smoke out its ass, then the equivalent advertising cost of every square inch of newsprint or second of airtime devoted to covering this case in the public view can be treated as damage to Apple. Every "they can't tell me what to do with the OS after I've bought the box" comment in these threads counts as noise that Apple will have to spend time, effort, and money arguing against. That time, effort, and money are resources Apple could otherwise have spent writing more software, designing new hardware, or otherwise expanding or improving its business. Psystar would have imposed an operating expense on Apple without having any legal right to do so. And following the theory that "if you light the fire, you can be held liable for whatever gets burnt," the court can rule that Psystar owes Apple the cost of cleaning up the mess it created.

Re:Berne convention?

[sonamchauhan]

> A large part of this case revolves around whether
> Psystar has a legitimate right to tell the whole world
> what business Apple is in.

Nonsense!
Whatever this case is actually about, it is not the stuff you are stating.

Hello world - I affirm that Apple is in the browser business.

Now sue me Apple!

Re:Berne convention?

[__aajfby9338]

I'll be really surprised if Apple doesn't agree to simply make a deal with Psystar to manufacture clones for a licensing fee. It isn't that radical - Apple licensed Mac clones back in the late 80s - early 90s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#The_first_Macintosh_clones ).

From the Wikipedia article that you linked to:

Jobs claimed [...] that the Mac clone program was doomed to failure from the start, and since Apple made money primarily by selling computer hardware, it ought not engage in a licensing program that would reduce its hardware sales.

Prepare to be really surprised. ;-)

Re:Berne convention?

[JebusIsLord]

Back then a computer was $4000, which included significant margin. Nowadays, computers (yes, even Macs) are much cheaper, and the margins are lower. Apple sells a new copy of OSX every year to most of its customers, with or without a new computer. This could make them money, if tightly controlled.

Re:Berne convention?

[Nethead]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Computer

In early 1982, Franklin released the Franklin Ace 100, and in March of the same year, the Franklin Ace 1000; they were very close copies of the Apple II and II+ computers, respectively. The motherboard design is nearly identical and Franklin also copied Apple's ROMs. Two months later, Apple Computer sued Franklin for copyright violation. Franklin initially won. (See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp..)

Re:Berne convention?

[dubl-u]

The big money will be in 'brand dilution'.

There are a relatively small number of sorts of information that are legally protected. Brand is not one of them, except insofar as you are boosting somebody's trademarks. But Psystar's whole point is that they aren't Apple, and they aren't using Apple's trademarks to pretend they are.

the equivalent advertising cost of every square inch of newsprint or second of airtime devoted to covering this case in the public view can be treated as damage to Apple

Heh. Normally people just say "I am not a lawyer" rather than proving it dramatically. Maybe you should try that next time?

Re:Berne convention?

[badpazzword]

Yes, but that wouldn't cover PAST sales.

Alas, apparently, Apple did register that copyright. RTFA, or rather the comments to it.

Re:Berne convention?

[AtomicJake]

Sight, if you quote the link, do it completely and correctly. Then you see that: (1) you can register anytime your copyright, and (2) your claims are limited if you register after an infringement.

Quote from: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

        * Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

        * Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

        * If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

        * If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

        * Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on âoeIntellectual Property Rights.â

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.

Re:Berne convention?

[Reservoir Penguin]

And some people stiull say that Apple hardware is not overpriced. The profit margins on the hardware must DAMN LARGE if they'd rather sell one system than one OS.

Re:Berne convention?

[TheRaven64]

Except they aren't. I used to have an upgrade disk for 10.3 (which cost £10, as opposed to the full price of around £60). It required me to have 10.2 installed before it would run (which was very irritating when I needed to do a reinstall after the machine was repaired, since I had to install 10.2, and then 10.3, even though the 10.3 installer was deleting everything already on the disk). In contrast, the boxed copies of 10.4 and 10.5 that I own install without checking for a previous version.

Re:Berne convention?

[GizmoToy]

Apple would argue that there is no reason for them to check for a previous version. From Apple's point of view, in order to install them you need to have a Mac, which would have come with OS X, therefore making the boxed copy an upgrade.

Since you can't get a Mac without OS X, all boxed copies of the OS are upgrades.

Re:Berne convention?

[TheRaven64]

Clones were bad for Apple because Apple produced high-quality hardware. The clones produced machines with better specs, but much cheaper components, so were able to undercut Apple and take away their business. Now, however, Apple produce fairly shoddy computers (in absolute terms - they're still a bit better than a few of their competitors), from off-the-shelf components. From their financials, their margins on most computers are less than a boxed copy of OS X, which means that letting people install bought copies of OS X on other hardware would be in their interests.

A few years ago, I suggested that they should partner with IBM or Sun to sell OS X-based machines for the business market. They would license OS X under a non-compete agreement, so the other company could only ship machines in market segments where Apple didn't have a product, and would both market each other's systems. IBM (back when they were making chips for Macs) would get a nice desktop OS for business desktops built with their chips, and Apple would get a second source. Sun would have been the other option, since they had quite a nice kernel and at the time the OS X kernel was an embarrassment (it's quite nice with 10.5), and had a history of working with Cocoa/OpenStep (although not one that makes them friends with Steve Jobs).

Re:Berne convention?

[Dhalka226]

This is untrue, and I can assure you that the amount of "actual damages" that Apple's very expensive and capable legal team would confront you with over OSX, would utterly dwarf even the "per infringement" maximum of statutory damages.

They can quote whatever number they want as compensatory damages, but the burden of proving those damages is on them. If they tried to approach a number exceeding the statutory damages, they would be facing an extremely angry judges. Judges are not a fan of being lied to, nor is it ethical for lawyers to even try. Push them too much and they might just throw you out on your nose.

The absolute most they would be able to realistically get is the average cost of an Apple machine + whatever profits Pystar has made so far from selling these machines. Clearly that's nothing to sneeze at, but pretending that just because Apple has a lot of lawyers that they're magically going to get some uber-ridiculous number isn't based in reality. They're not even likely to receive that much, frankly. I'd wager the number would be closer to the cost of copies of OS X * sales + profits than it is cost of apple machines * sales + profits.

Compensatory damages, which is what these are, are almost never that high. When you see "COMPANY Z ORDERED TO PAY ONE HUNDRED GAZILLION DOLLARS!" it's almost all punitive or statutory, neither of which Apple would be entitled to recover if Pystar is correct that they did not register their copyright prior to filing this lawsuit.

Re:Berne convention?

[xstonedogx]

Normally people just say "I am not a lawyer" rather than proving it dramatically.

Except Jack Thompson.

Re:Berne convention?

[thesandtiger]

You are missing a lot of factors that go past the margin on the hardware.

One of the reasons Windows gets a bad rap for crashing a lot is because it has to be able to handle any kind of hardware you throw at it. One of the reasons Linux gets such a bad rap for being difficult to install and use is because virtually everyone who's ever installed it has probably run into a problem where some piece of hardware that should be easy to make work just won't. Apple, on the other hand, gets a reputation for "just working" because they control what hardware is used with it - yes, there are problems, but in general they are much less on a user-per-user basis than alternatives.

Another big factor would be reputation as a premium brand. iPods are the bit of Apple that anyone can afford, but they maintain their image as premium by generally doing a good job trying to control the retail experience, charging a premium for the hardware, and all that. Being just another OS would remove that and would take a lot of tarnish off the corporate identity.

Another would be a huge spike in support costs. Right now, many of Apple's customers buy AppleCare and that subsidizes the costs of support to some extent. If they're just selling the OS and people start having problems because Cheap Chinese Piece of Shit Video Card doesn't work with OSX, they have to be able to handle that OR risk ruining their reputation for "just working" and their premium brand image, both of which eventually lead to their margins.

It isn't just the margin on the hardware that Apple's worried about - it's everything else. They'd have to completely change the way they do business and completely overhaul the company. I suspect that the margin on the hardware + all that other stuff is what makes it so much more profitable to sell complete systems instead of just an OS.

Re:Berne convention?

[tgibbs]

I have boxed copies of 10.{1,2,3,4,5} at home. Never once have I signed any agreement or acknowledgement or waiver of rights.

It is stated in the documentation and presented on screen when the software is installed. To install, you must click a button to agree to the license restrictions. If you choose not to do so, you are entitled to return the software to Apple for a refund.

Case closed!

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States Copyright Office says otherwise.

These clones suck

[DesScorp]

I wasn't using a Mac during the last time Apple allowed clones, but several people I knew at the time all claimed that their clones were generally faster than the machines Apple sold. So now that I us OS X, I'd like some Intel clones... but not from these clowns. They sound like the SCO of cloners.

This might save Psystar, but it won't help others

[swillden]

The way US copyright law works is that copyright exists automatically, no registration is necessary. However, registration *is* required before filing a lawsuit. If Apple really failed to register before suing Psystar, they might be able to get the suit dismissed. If the judge is particularly nice, they might even get it dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be brought again (though I can't see why a judge would do that).

However, that will in no way prevent Apple from registering their copyright and then filing suit against others. Nor will it prevent Apple from suing Psystar over alleged infringements of other copyrights (say, newer versions of OS X).

This is an ordinary bit of legal maneuvering by some attorneys who noticed an apparent procedural oversight by their opponents and who are attempting to capitalize on it to get at least a little delay, and perhaps even more. It's really not a big deal.

(IANAL, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express, so the above is likely complete crap.)

Re:Seriously?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed they were. Apple formed Psystar as a way to boil the blood of Apple zealots and make them feel good about spending money on overpriced hardware.

By definition...

[GrahamCox]

Psystar is also accusing Apple of bricking Macs that don't run on genuine Apple hardware

Since the definition of "Macintosh" is a computer built/branded/sold by Apple, and no-one else, this statement is nonsensical. It could say "Psystar is accusing Apple of bricking generic PCs that are attempting to illegally run OS X", but, like it or not, I would have thought they are entitled to do so.

Re:By definition...

[MSG]

"Psystar is accusing Apple of bricking generic PCs that are attempting to illegally run OS X"

It is not illegal to run OS X on generic PCs. It is a violation of the license, but the license does not carry the force of law. At this point, I'm not even sure that it's been settled that licenses are enforcible, given that their terms aren't available prior to the customer paying for the product, which makes it a sale or purchase.

Re:By definition...

[TheoMurpse]

No, it's more like registering a username on Slashdot, and then being told you're not allowed to use car analogies.

Bizzare

[WiiVault]

A few months back I would have never bought conspiracy theory that Psystar was mearly a front for other companies who wanted to bundle OS X (think SCO - MS) but with their tenacity and resources I am starting to wonder who Psystar really is. Oddly even Apple has asserted this claim in court docs. Once this is over we will surely hear some interesting stories.

Re:Seriously?!?

[im_thatoneguy]

The Berne Convention will be out the window if we ever pass the Orphan Works bill that Corbis keeps trying to push down our throats.

Re:Weird claims by Pystar - their giant leap

[im_thatoneguy]

Yes. But would OSX be OSX if it ran on someone else's hardware.

As soon as you allow Joe Schmoe to install OSX he's going to want to start making demands. "Why doesn't my 15 year old network card work?" "Why doesn't my printer work?" "Why does my computer keep crashing."

The reason Microsoft got into trouble with Vista was largely in part due to pressure from system builders pressuring them to include hardware that wasn't actually capable of running Vista smoothly, or had inadequate driver support.

Opening OSX would be like kicking a house cat out into the gutter and expecting it to fend for itself. It's just not ready for the rediculous diversity of hardware that Windows is obligated to support by running on commodity hardware. That smooth "just works" will be descend into the same brand tarnishing sludge that is compatibility.

Re:Seriously?!?

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

That's the worst argument I've ever heard. I've got two words for you Psystar: Berne Convention

From the article you link to:

(note however that when the United States joined the Convention in 1988, they continued to make statutory damages and attorney's fees only available for registered works).

I suspect this is what Psystar are referring to, rather than Information Week's rather short, content free insinuation that Apple loses all rights if they fail to register.

You'd almost think they were organized just to antagonize Apple. Hmm...

Testing the waters, Hardware vendors want to sell something other than windows. I'm willing to bet one (or more) of the big 5 PC vendors is behind this

US Copyright Office search

[evilgrug]

Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5.
Type of Work: Text
Registration Number / Date: TX0006849489 / 2008-01-24
Application Title: Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5.
Title: Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5.
Description: Print material + CD-ROMs.
Copyright Claimant: Apple Inc.. Address: 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014
Date of Creation: 2007
Date of Publication: 2007-10-26
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: Apple Inc., employer for hire; Domicile: United States. Authorship: new and revised text, illustrations and compilation; new and revised computer program.
Previous Registration: 2006, TX-6-325-148.
Pre-existing Material: Previous versions of "Mac OS" and "Mac OS X" operating system software code.
Basis of Claim: new and revised text, illustrations and compilation; new and revised computer program.
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.

Re:US Copyright Office search

[Brownian Motion]

The copyright is for "10.5" not "10.5.0".

Psystar's claim is that they buy commercially available leopard disks and use them.

I've not bought a retail version of Leopard lately, but there is still a pretty good chance that it's 10.5.0. After all, it'll boot any machine that did not come with leopard (and hence, has it's own restore disks). Not sure why Apple would go through the effort to make a new version, the only pay off is to save bandwidth starved users from downloading a combo update.

Just because Apple shipped macs with 10.5.1 ... 10.5.6, doesn't mean you can buy the disks. The only way to get them is to buy a new mac.

Though, I guess you can claim that THOSE disks don't have a copyright, and thus you are copying them. Buy one new mac, get a leopard disk and use it.

But, since you get hit for "only costs", Apple can claim these non-retail disks cost more. And, in fact they do as they contain iLife and an emergency disk. As well as some effort to make them run on the new machine (which wouldn't run the current version of OS X when they were released).

And, that pre-supposes that Apple has to re-register point releases to get the full benefit of Copyright protection. If I fixed some errata in a published book, and did not re-file the copyright, is it still fully protected? And is this what 10.5.1 is?

How much change is needed before someone has to re-file?

Back to Basics

[westlake]

The United States Copyright Office says otherwise.

"No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.

If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

If the work is an unpublished or published computer program, the deposit requirement is one visually perceptible copy in source code of the first 25 and last 25 pages of the program. For a program of fewer than 50 pages, the deposit is a copy of the entire program.

If the work is in a CD-ROM format, the deposit requirement is one complete copy of the material, that is, the CD-ROM, the operating software, and any manual(s) accompanying it. If registration is sought for the computer program on the CD-ROM, the deposit should also include a printout of the first 25 and last 25 pages of source code for the program." Copyright Office Basics

Re:Seriously?!?

[LoRdTAW]

Follow the money? It just might lead to Redmond, Palo Alto or Round Rock.

Apple will never let anyone run OSX on non Apple hardware. As long as they want to keep their hip turtle neck wearing image they must keep complete control. Imagine Dell selling dull gray OSX computers for half the price Apple does? Or OSX Latitudes. The once hip OSX now runs on un cool nerdy looser PC guys computer. Not cool.

No I am not bashing Apple or its users. This is what their marketing department must think. Remember Apple is kept alive by what I believe is a damn good marketing machine. It keeps Apple looking hip no matter what. Take away the cool hip design and marketing and your looking at another boring PC (technically an Apple is a PC). How else can you explain people high fiving each other when they bought their shiny new iPhones?

Re:I've been bricked before

[Sancho]

Yeah, but that's like saying, "He killed me. Not to the point of death, but ...."

*sigh* needs more quality editors.

[Meor]

This is just an editor rant. I'm sorry, kdawson is just a horrible editor. First he posts "google is horrible they're not giving bonuses and feeding the masses dogfood; P.S. use linux" Then he posts this article which dozens of people have immediately spotted as B.S. I want my 7 minutes of reading Slashdot back.

Re:In Proof Of Stupid, Look No Further

[QuantumG]

You don't understand because you don't follow legal precedents in copyright law.

Pystar are trying to make that claim that the Mac OS X bootloader detects their hardware and refuses to run on it. That's illegal - so says the Supreme Court - as it denies competition. That is, you and I are required to buy a computer from Apple and only from Apple if we want it to run Mac OS X. What's more, the Lexmark case has declared that code written to enforce monopoly control is void of copyright. Pystar would really love to have Mac OS X stripped of copyright.. that would make their business model a whole lot more profitable.

Re: Yes, Mac OS X on generic hardware is great!

[itsybitsy]

Mac OS X runs just fine on a Gigabyte GA-EP45-DQ6 with the EFix (efi-x.com) gizmo and YES IT is still Mac OS X. Can't tell the difference! 4 core processor, 8GB RAM... lots of disk (up to ten 1.5 tera byte drives for that motherboard). NVidia graphics board with 30" Samsung display (so gorgeous I have two, one on my mac book pro and will never go back to the smaller displays for my machines).

So yes, Mac OS X is just the same on "generic" hardware.

Apple could specify supported configurations and keep the drivers open. NeXT did this very successfully with OpenStep 4.3 years ago. In fact many years after NeXT was purchased by and took over Apple people were still writing drivers for OpenStep!

It can work. They've proven it before.

Microsoft needs to be whipped by a better system. Unleash the beast Apple. Unleash it for the good fight against Microcrap.

Re:Sorry, but how exactly is this informative?

[gruntled]

I believe I am in fact correct on this. From the US Copyright Office:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr

"Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin."

Yes, you can register after the fact, but if you don't do so within 90 days of publication or -- and this is particularly important in this instance -- *prior* to infringement of the work, your award is limited to actual damages; hardly worth the money Apple would be paying to its lawyers. Again, assuming that Apple didn't register the work.

Re:Seriously?!?

[vux984]

Testing the waters, Hardware vendors want to sell something other than windows. I'm willing to bet one (or more) of the big 5 PC vendors is behind this

I just can't see it.

Even in the most decisive win for Psystar the ONLY thing apple has to do is take OSX off the retail shelf. That's all folks! if Psystar can't buy OSX, it can't bundle OSX. Game over!

Apple then only bundles OSX with actual Apple computer, and it delivers new versions to registered customers via Apple Software update, requiring them to have a valid apple hardware serial number and a credit card to, obtain that particular update.

Then the only way anyone is going to get OSX then is to either buy an Apple, or to Pirate it. Neither of which will do Psystar or anyone else in the 'big 5' any good. Sure Psystar could buy a mini, and 'rebundle' OSX with a Core2Quad tower... but Psystar is going to have a tough time being price competive, paying $500+ per license... unless they part out the mini's on ebay or something to recoup the cost.

Re:Snowball, hell

[__aasqbs9791]

I'm pretty sure Ford could do that if they wanted legally. If they bought a Honda engine and put it into another car, the only problem they would have is if they tried to call it a Honda (Trademark), or claim that Honda had to honor a warranty on it. I'm not sure how Ford would make any money doing that, but if they figured out how, I don't see anything automatically illegal that would allow Honda to sue to prevent it.

Re:In Proof Of Stupid, Look No Further

[QuantumG]

The code in the Lexmark cartridges did a heck of a lot more than just stopping competitors. Lexmark lost copyright over the entire program. That's the precedent. Just because you're ignorant of it, doesn't make it not so.

Re:Seriously?!?

[mstone]

Feeding the troll, I know, but what the hell..

Yes. Apple does have a right to a monopoly on Apple-branded computers. The Coca-Cola corporation has a right to a monopoly on Coke. Nike has a right to a monopoly on Nike running shoes.

The whole purpose of patent, copyright, and trademark is to grant a monopoly on ideas, expressions of ideas, and icons associated with a specific company.

If you want a computer whose OS is just as good as OS X, you have every right in the world to go out and write one. Apple can't do shit to stop you. You can sell it for profit, or just give it away if you want. You might even create a license that requires people who use and modify your code to release their own modifications so that other people can continue to share the wealth.

That's what we call "a competitive market."

Taking work that someone else spent the time and money to create, then using it to compete against them, is called "being a huge flaming asshole" ... a concept you've obviously mastered. If you do it in contradiction to the terms of the license -- the one whose validity is defined in terms of the monopoly granted by patent, copyright, or trademark -- that's called "illegal."

There's both a legal and ethical difference between "I'm willing to share everything I have with you," and "I'm willing to share everything you have."

Re:Seriously?!?

[QuantumG]

Don't disagree with you.. But Psystar is not selling counterfeits. They're selling clones.

Taking work that someone else spent the time and money to create, then using it to compete against them, is called "being a huge flaming asshole" ...

Economics would disagree with you. Making clones is a normal respectable part of every business.. except ones where the government has granted a monopoly.. and Apple seems to think their copyright monopoly gives them a monopoly over their commodity hardware business too.

Re:In Proof Of Stupid, Look No Further

[QuantumG]

You are required to buy a Honda car if you want to run it with a Honda engine. Honda can take any steps they want to prevent you from running their engines in a Toyota. That is not illegal.

This is what is really annoying about talking about anti-trust stuff with geeks. No, Honda can not.

All this stuff has already been done - in dozens of markets - in the 1800s. It has been made perfectly clear that any action taken by a manufacturer to deliberately break interoperability with competing products is illegal.

In fact, even your exact example has been addressed in US courts. Honda is not required to maintain compatibility with any competitors that are using their engines, but if they make modifications specifically to break competitor's ability to use their engines, then they are engaging in anti-trust action.

It's not hard.

Re:Hip, what?

[LoRdTAW]

Turtle neck was referring to Jobs image and how he represents Apple. I also do live in New York City and I am exposed to allot of hipsters as well as Mac Snobs (my friend is one!). So please forgive my bias. I don't dislike OSX, I have used it and enjoyed it. It unfortunately doesn't fit my needs. I use Vista Ultimate on my Gaming rig and Linux/BSD on everything else.

"This "Apple==hip" thing is getting ridiculous."

Yea it really got ridiculous when they aired all those "im a Mac" commercials. They blatantly market their products as "hip" to belittle PC users. Then toss in all the iPod commercials and iPod product placement in pop music videos. How many TV shows do you see with Mac's/iMac/MAcBook on peoples desks? I have seen them on Dexter and CSI to name a few. Maybe they are there because they happen to be popular with video editing. Or maybe Apple contributes to those who give free publicity? Who knows all I know is they truly do have an excellent marketing department.

"iPods might be hip, but iMacs, Apple TV, OS X, iLife, iWork, Airport Extreme, Time Capsule, etc?"

All of those other products are for people who already own Apple hardware. They don't count unless your a Mac user. Otherwise you would not be interested in those products.

I dont want to start a flame war or anything. I just want to point out Apple has an image to protect. Letting others intstall OSX on more generic hardware makes them just another PC maker.

Re:In Proof Of Stupid, Look No Further

[igb]

Unless US law is radically different to the UK and EU situation, anti-trust legislation is only relevant when there is a trust: when you exert what we British call significant market power. Analogies involving cars are weak, certainly in the EU, because there is explicit legislation covering cars which is not applicable elsewhere --- long-term parts availability and permission for pattern manufacturers to produce copies is permitted for reasons of social and industrial policy, but it's not necessarily applicable elsewhere.

So car manufacturers are obligated to provide parts for fifteen years after last sale, and pattern part manufacturers are permitted to operate within certain constraints, and car manufacturers aren't permitted to insist that initial warranties are dependent on dealer servicing (although they are allowed to impose this on `extended' warranties). But makers of domestic appliances, say, can decline to sell parts, sue people who copy them and tear up warranties for equipment that you've tried to repair with, and all you can fall back on is sale of goods act rights or their local equivalent.

Now this all changes once you exert significant market power. BT isn't allowed to insist you only use their phones on their lines, say, because it's a regulated company which has market power. Microsoft (like IBM before it) is the US equivalent: it's been found to be a near-monopoly (ie to exert significant market power) both in the US and the EU, IBM weren't allowed to `close' interfaces between their CPUs and their disks; Honeywell were. Microsoft are legally bound to disclose the APIs and protocols used between their applications and their operating systems; Sun aren't.

And Apple aren't, either. Psystar are pissing in the wind, attempting to argue that there's a monopoly market for OSX which Apple run. That's like arguing there's a monopoly market for Cadbury's Dairy Milk, totally ignoring the rack of Hershey Bars next to it. For as long as there's a reasonably substitutable good which isn't under the control of monopolist, trusts are very hard to prove.

This is why Apple was kept alive by Microsoft in the 90s, and is why Microsoft continue to build and develop Office for OSX (and, particularly, Entourage): by showing that there are alternative platforms for Office they greatly reduce the power of the government to regulate them. I'm always surprised that Microsoft are so antagonistic to Linux and Open Office: if they could show there were three credible, available desktop operating systems with application stacks on them, they could nip over to the anti-trust people and make the point that they aren't a monopolist. And they'd be right, too.

ian

Re:Seriously?!?

[Rutefoot]

Yes. Apple does have a right to a monopoly on Apple-branded computers. The Coca-Cola corporation has a right to a monopoly on Coke. Nike has a right to a monopoly on Nike running shoes.

Don't disagree with you.. But Psystar is not selling counterfeits. They're selling clones.

To use your original analogy, that'd be like, I don't know, Pepsi coming out with a product that is very similar to Coke.

Pirate OSX - save Apple money!

[jamesh]

That made me giggle. If Apple was losing $100 on every sale of OSX, then in terms of 'actual' damages, if you pirate it does Apple have to pay you?

I know it doesn't work that way, the 'loss' in question here is basically just income from software sales vs costs of development, so what I've said above is rubbish, but I still thought it was a curious concept :)

Re:From the comments to TFA

[platypussrex]

Registration is not required to secure a copyright on a work. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created. So the very fact that Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard exists is a copyright.

However, Apple must have registered their copyright on Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard before they can file suit for infringement on this copyright.

Read about all that at copyright.gov:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

This would all seem to be moot though. According to copyright.gov, Apple registered their copyright on Mac OS X Leopard Version 10.5 on January 24, 2008, Registration Number: TX0006849489.

http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=4&ti=1,4&Search_Arg=Mac%20OS%20X%20Leopard&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=-H_wcyyigtEZ3UT-QtRpXsTJUefv&SEQ=20081222171112&SID=1

I have no doubt that there is something we're missing here, as it seems unlikely that Psystar's Lawyers couldn't do a simple search at copyright.gov for "Mac OS X Leopard". But this article offers little more than an announcement that Psystar has responded to Apple's copyright suit.