Slashdot Mirror
Apple Asks Judge To Shutter Psystar's Clone Unit
CWmike writes "Apple wants a federal judge to shut down Psystar's Mac clone operation and order the company to pay more than $2.1 million in damages, according to court documents. The move was the first by Apple since US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar violated Apple's copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when it installed Mac OS X on clones it sold. Alsup's Nov. 13 order, which granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and quashed Psystar's similar request, was a crushing blow to the Florida company's legal campaign. In a motion filed Monday, Apple asked Alsup to grant a permanent injunction that would force Psystar to stop selling any computer bundled with Mac OS X; using, selling or even owning software that lets it crack Apple's OS encryption key to trick Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware; and 'inducing, aiding or inducing others in infringing Apple's copyright.'"
Groklaw has summarized Apple's request as well, and noted that Apple has also filed a motion to dismiss Psystar's litigation in Florida (or transfer it to California, where the above injunction was filed).
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Apple sells systems. In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari, Apple, Amiga or Commodore computer.
The more you guys push to "free" Mac OS X, the more you guys risk of seeing the opposite laws being written, giving HP, Dell, Acer and others the ability to sign exclusive contracts with Microsoft. No more unlocked computers, no more OSS. Be very, very careful what you guys wish for.
Wah wah wah. The copyright laws are fucking ridiculous. Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy.
Would a case against me memorizing my favorite book hold up in court? You can't legally force me to have a lobotomy, and I have an illegal copy of your work in my brain.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Yeah, Apple is Apple and I don't have to like the way they do things. I will however support them if someone is encroaching on the way they want to run their business. Cracking an Apple OS to run on a machine that Apple doesn't want to goes against what Apple wants to do with their OS. Yes, I know, they're still making money on an OS copy sold, so they shouldn't bitch, but if they want to thats their business.
Apple wants everything to stay within their box, and they want to have complete and utter control over that box. As long as Apple isn't trying to control whats outside the box - I don't care, but as I see it, OS X is part of their box. In the long run, their strictly closed box might be their downfall. No skin off my back.
"Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy."
Except we already have the exception in the law for that, and it's actually specifically stated.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I wouldn't call them fools if their business strategy makes them alot money.
I don't like the way they do things either, but all in all, they picked a route - stuck to it - and have generally been flawless in its execution.
As you said, the fools are the ones buying the product, but if its what they want, who am I to argue?
I too found that argument incredulous. Reading software into RAM is how programs are accessed. In fact, the software in question causes this action to happen! Apple should be suing themselves on this basis. I can't begin to imagine what was going on in the mind of the judge who ruled in favor of that argument other than being incapable of understanding that copying code into memory is part of how execution of said code is done in EVERY single case of software execution... (please, no comments related to punch cards, ROM or similar technologies. This is about software that is for sale and run on home computers.)
More and more, special exceptions are being made for software. If this were a case of someone buying a hardware device and connecting it to some other hardware device, these proceedings wouldn't be happening. Someone needs to define for once and for all that publishers cannot tell people how they can or should access the copyrighted material that was legally purchased from the publisher.
On the box of nearly ever food product on the shelf of a grocery store is a "serving suggestion." Imagine their being able to enforce that serving suggestion in a court of law.
I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
This isn't a case where Psystar was making boxes, buying retail copies of MacOS, installing those on the boxes and selling box and MacOS together. That's how Psystar portrayed it, but it turns out that what they were actually doing was cloning all the machines from a master copy of the OS, then including a (still-unopened) copy of MacOS with the box. If you want to use 17 USC 117 (running programs) and 17 USC 109 (First Sale), you have to actually observe the forms. It's not enough to claim that the result is the same as if you'd observed the forms. Thus the case was a slam-dunk for Apple.
Please explain to me why I am a fool for buying the system that best enables me to do my work? I have, at various times, primarily used Windows, Linux and OSX and, currently, OSX is the system that works best for me. Considering the price differences amount to a couple of hours pay yet the productivity gains amount to more than that every month, wouldn't I be a fool *not* to use it?
It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux? Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.
So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.
Since you didn't post to my Apple bashing anonymously, I will explain myself...
My impression and limited experience of Mac users has been folks who genuinely think Apple is innovative. I believe they are not. They take existing technology and perhaps make it more mature by adding a good interface to it. I give them credit for making things like mp3 players more mainstream but they did it by trying to pushing their own format. In the end they are bad for the industry and I am glad their strategy of keeping everything closed failed the last time around they were a heavy player.
Very simply, if "Apple" in the article was replaced with the less word hip "Sony" all the Apple fans would not be happy.
Yes, special exceptions are made for software. One of the notable ones is that a legally owned copy may be duplicated into memory for the purpose of running the program. Notice the three words near the beginning which Psystar failed to satisfy.
(not a lawyer, and all that)
Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
*figures pulled from ass, but not far from reality.
It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
I think the difference being that if I have a legal license to run software then I have a legal right to load that software into memory and utilize it as long as the original agreement allows for it.
But...
If i pirate software, then run it I don't have a legal right to have the original copy or the additional copy running in ram.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware
Sure they would. In 1980 I had a TRS-80 model I, with two single-density, single-sided floppy drives. When I booted it, I could boot Radio Shack's operating system (TRS-DOS) or one of several alaternates including NEWDOS, LDOS etc.
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements. From my perspective it would be detrimental to their business models to place those kinds of restrictions on their products. For Apple it helps their business model and therefore they have included that into the license. You can argue that it might be worthy of anti-trust, might not be the best business model (though evidence points to it being highly effective) or anything else you can think of. The fact that nobody else does this does not mean that it can't be done, just that those other parties haven't found it to be a worthwhile business idea.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
The software loaded onto the Psystar machines were legally paid for. Apple's problem with it is that it isn't being installed onto Apple hardware. This licensing agreement is trying to assert a right of a copyright holder to tell you what you can and cannot do with the works that do not include copying. Copying into RAM does not qualify as a copy as it clearly falls into the realm of making use of the works. It would be like telling someone they can buy a book but cannot read it. A damned stupid argument I'm sure anyone would agree.
Copyright licenses attempt to assert some pretty unfriendly terms of use and the terms keep getting worse and worse. It's about time these creeping terms are hedged off.
Apple is doing NOTHING to stop Dell or HP from loading any flavor of Linux or Windows on their boxes.
Apple sells Macs and iPhones, and OSX by Apple is designated only to run on those machines. If you can get it to run on other boxes, fine (and Apple has yet to threaten or prosecute folks who make or tell you how to make a Hackintosh), but don't tell me that Apple is desiring "complete control" over other manufacturer's boxes because those companies want to sell something they don't have the rights to (OSX).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market.
Or IBM OS/360. Or Palm WebOS. Or...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
While true, Apple is in the same situation. They allow you to run any OS on their hardware you want, but restrict their own OS to their own hardware, much as TRS-DOS would be restricted to Radio Shack hardware.
much as TRS-DOS would be restricted to Radio Shack hardware.
TRS-DOS wasn't restricted to Radio Shack hardware - It ran on any of the TRS-80 clones, like the LMW-80. Most people ran 'better' OSes like NEWDOS, but if memory serves (and granted it was nearly 30 years ago) there was nothing preventing you from running TRS-DOS on a TRS-80 clone.
Eww... Remind me to never borrow anything from you, ever.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's. It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys."
Another is the cult/fanboy mentality Apple works to foster. They have always marketed their stuff as being superior, and implied that you are a superior person because you buy it. They work to create this cult-like status where you are "special" for being one of the chosen few who are an Apple user. That sort of thing leads to a "They can do no wrong," kind of mentality. Fanboys very much believe that their chosen brand/company is always right, whatever they say or do is correct. As such it doesn't matter how bad the action is, they defend it.
Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special. Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.
That is really what it comes down to. Apple has a large fan base who is convinced they are the noble underdog, fighting the good fight. They don't examine their behavior objectively.
>>Corporations exist for us not the other way 'round.
I think corporations exists for the shareholders not us...no?
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
No, but that does indicate that there's something wrong.
All the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market often quote how it is a better thing for consumers than lots of regulation. It's true, when lots of competition exists. Ever questioned why that is? Hint: it's not because companies get a high profit margin. On the contrary, it's because prices approach marginal cost
A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's particularly bad, because the lack of competition is not due to others not wanting to get in the market, but due to government protecting Apple's market in the form of enforcing EULAs in court. If you buy Mac OS X, they should have no say what you do with it.
What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.
What you're suggesting is insane. The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer, or just cloning the same bits and bytes. What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?
The law should not be stupid, but be interpreted according to common sense. If this is how it is, either this broken legal system needs further fixes, or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law. If I own the medium the software is contained on, and disagree with the license, which law is on the books that says it's illegal for me to run the software any which way I choose?
Part of the purchase agreement is that Apple only sells a box with MacOS X if you agree to the license. Up to the point where you agree to the license, you have a box in your hands that is legally Apple's, and Apple has money in its hands that is legally yours. You have the right to disagree with the license and return the box for a refund.
So before you agree to the license, you have no rights at all. You have the same rights as the postman who delivered the software to your home - he held software in his hands that wasn't his own, he had no right to install it anywhere. After you agree to the license, you agreed. Even Psystar did never, ever argue that Apple's license didn't in principle apply. They only disagreed (strongly) with certain terms in the license, not with the license itself.
Owning the medium of the software clearly means nothing. You could always buy a recordable DVD and make a copy of the software and you would clearly own the medium, but that wouldn't give you any rights either. And you don't own the software: You have a license allowing certain uses, and since you asked, it is _copyright law_ that doesn't allow you to make any copies without permission (license) of the copyright holder.
Don't large PC manufacturers do something like this for whatever system they're installing?
Sure they do. And they have a license from Microsoft that allows them to do that legally. Apple, on other other hand, did not grant Psystar any sort of license at all to install OS X on their computers, let alone one that allowed them to create cloned copies.
This ain't rocket surgery.
He's saying it doesn't count because it is literally a requirement to use any software. There is no other way to run software other than copying it into RAM, and therefore you don't require an exception to copyright law, as such an exception is assumed when you buy it.
Not quite, no. Psystar had legally owned copies, purchased from Apple. Claims that their copies are illegal because they run afowl of the Apple-branded computer clause in the EULA are only relevant if the EULA applies, which is what the GP was calling into question. As such, your statement is purely circular: Psystar's use was illegal because it wasn't covered by the exception because it was illegal.
The actual reason is that the law has simply been ignored since its conception. A bad precedent was set, and judges have followed it ever since.
.. evil. This is nothing new. They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.
It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market. Or IBM OS/360. Or Palm WebOS. Or...
Fujitsu. They even design their own SPARC CPUs which are better performing than Sun's. In fact, Sun has done such a craptastic job designing UltraSPARC V and Rock, that they have to sell high-end servers using Fujitsu's processors to be able to compete. Amdahl Corporation manufactures IBM S/360 hardware.
I'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys, though, when they know they'll get crushed, like a nut.
Check out the Groklaw article on the case. It appears that getting sued by Apple was part of Psystar's business plan from the get-go. They actually marketed the idea to VC outfits as a reason to invest in the company.
What Psystar was more than anything else--certainly more than a computer manufacturer--was a case of investor fraud. Standby for shareholder lawsuits in 3...2...1...
This ain't rocket surgery.
Interesting choice of example, since Logic is Mac-only for the sole reason that Apple bought eMagic. Prior to that Logic was also available for Windows. The windows Logic users were left high and dry with no further updates or support whatsoever. Think about it - Logic for Windows was a $399 piece of software. It was also rather unorthodox, leaving users to learn entirely new audio software. Very few were of a mind to buy a Mac I assure you.
I find it ironic that a Mac user would be proud of Apple for some of its most anti-competitive behaviour, especially in this thread of all places. Apple quashing Psystar is completely legal and IMO justified, but it's nothing to be proud of.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
I'm not talking about copying and distributing, I'm talking about doing what you want with something for your personal use.
No, you're missing the point, Apple has never gone after anyone for making a hackintoch for their own use. Apple has only gone after those who want to distribute hackintoches. And that is what corresponds to you copying "Bob the pop singers' latest CD".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
On the First sale doctrine:
"With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements
1. It is not settled law (to put it mildly) that the acceptance of a EULA is necessary to use a copy of software that you own. See here.
2. There is explicit federal law with regard to the right of a owner of a copy of a software program to modify that work as necessary to make it work on "a machine", provided that they do redistribute that modification. See 17 USC 1179(a).