Slashdot Mirror
Judge Orders Permanent Injunction Against Psystar
AdmiralXyz writes "It appears to be the end of the road for infamous Mac clone-maker Psystar, as a federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against the company, banning it from selling its OS X-based hardware products, following November's ruling that Psystar was guilty of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Specifically, Judge William Alsup's ruling prevents Psystar from 'copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple; circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X; or doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.' The ruling does not include Psystar's Rebel EFI software, which (in theory) allows users to boot OS X onto some Intel computers, but Alsup said that too would be unlikely to stand up in court if Apple decides to make a formal challenge."
Heh. What would've happened if they weren't able to create IBM PC Clones in the '80s? Today's computing world would've looked a lot different, I suppose.
Every item I now produce and sell will be accompanied by an envelope only obvious once the buyer has brought it home. When the envelope is opened, it provides a series of restrictions on the person's use and re-sale of the product, not made known to them at the point of purchase.
Because I have copyright to the designs in the product, I am (apparently) allowed to define how the product is used and sold, not just how it is copied.
EULA ahoy!
The vast majority of consumers do not buy Apple machines so perhaps it does have an impact.
Well the issue here is Micrsoft is a SOFTWARE company, not HARDWARE. Apple on the otherhand is the later. Microsoft would have a hard time proving in court that it was seriously effecting their bottom line unless only THEY made those Intel machines. Apple on the otherhand could easily show that it was since only THEY make machines that run OS X.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
They wouldn't be able to do that in a timely fashion without inviting several breach of contract lawsuits from OEMs that sell AMD PCs.
And given the sizes of Intel and Microsoft, they'd get savagely beat down by antitrust regulators before AMD's lawyers could even mail their threats. (I'm not saying that the Obama administration would be quick or harsh, but Neelie Kroes would be.)
First Sale doctrine does not allow anyone to modify and redistribute someone else's copyrighted work without permission. If Psystar sold boxes of unopened OS X and a computer with no OS and a copy of their software to install OS X onto the blank computer, it would be another matter. The fact they modified OS X to run on a generic PC means they have to get permission of the original copyright owner (Apple) before they make it a business to resell it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There is no doctrine of first sale since software is usually licensed. Two different things.
Steve Jobs should be beaten to a pulp. So many people hate Microsoft for the what they did yet are Apple fanboys at the same time whom are doing the same @#$%ing thing!
I think Apple makes some nice products, but I absolutely despise Steve Jobs and how he has cloned Apple into Microsoft 2.0. I hope they get crushed by the EU and at some point the US for anti-competitive practices.
Because Apple didn't tell Psystar that they could sell OS X machines as long as they didn't sell Windows or Linux machines as well. They just said, "You can't sell OS X machines."
This has nothing to do with monopolies or anti-trust.
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines? How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines? The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?
Basic copyright law. Copyright law allows you to tell people what they can do with _your_ software. Microsoft tried to prevent people from installing Linux. Linux is not Microsoft software. Microsoft has no right to tell anyone what they can do with their Linux software. Apple told people what they can do with MacOS X, which is Apple's software. Apple has every right to tell you what you can do with Apple's software. And Apple allows and even supports installation of Windows and Linux on Apple computers.
Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?
They already do, just not exactly as you stated.
It is already illegal to take an OEM Windows license from one PC and install it on any other PC.
In that sense the license is definitely tied to ONE computer.
It is a sad state of things and probably shouldn't be this way, but it has been law for long before Apple (or even Microsoft) started doing this.
here isn't a sole in the world who buys apple because of their great hardware
Well I did, I bought my last 4 PC's specifically for the hardware _and_ the software.
Clue: there's more aspects to hardware than tech specs or CPU architecture. Think esthetics, ergonomics, durability, amount of write-off on your investment over time, etc. Many of Apple's computer products have no comparable alternative from another manufacturere, there's no Mac-Mini alternative that compares to it in terms of size and features, no iMac alternative with the same specifications and ethetics, no MacBook alternative with the same build quality and multitouch features, and so on. If you don't value these things, buy something else, but don't pretend as if there's a cheaper alternative from other vendors that compares on these aspects.
First sale clearly should allow modification of copyrighted works though. If you mod a bike, you can resell it. If you mod a MacBook, you can resell it. etc.
You don't seem to understand that this case will be used by all manor of assholes to attack all sorts of legitimate mods, possibly even classical first sale situations like cars.
Apple should have won the case eventually, but *only* by modifying their business practice to thoroughly avoid "selling" the OS alone. Apple cannot be compelled to sell the OS alone since they are not a monopoly, btw.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I guess I don't follow your "logic" here?
Apple is essentially running their business the SAME way *all* personal computer businesses did back in the 1980's, before the "PC clone" became the de-facto standard machine. Many of the people I encounter who have a strong dislike of Microsoft are simply saying they hate the way the company's products homogenized everything in the personal computer world. They essentially got things to the point where you either ran Microsoft's OS and flagship applications (like Office), or else your alternatives were pretty much all non-commercial products developed by community (like Linux or BSD). These people LIKE Apple because they're the last holdout of the "old way" of selling computers, where each manufacturer had a proprietary system that they tried to enhance and prove was the "best way" to use a computer. They're pretty much the last relevant competitor to Microsoft products that goes "toe to toe" with them, claiming they offer an "easy to use" solution appropriate for anybody -- even opening hundreds of retail stores to ensure the "average Joe" can view and purchase their offerings locally (since Microsoft products had that same visibility on store shelves everywhere).
In my mind, Apple is *far* from becoming "Microsoft 2.0". For starters, Steve Jobs has stated on multiple occasions that he has no interest in having the MOST market-share. He's not interested in playing the "grow as fast as possible, as large as possible" game. Sure, he wants Apple to be successful and its market-share to grow ... but if being the "biggest" was his true goal, why would he sit on HUGE cash reserves and not re-invest them in growing the company larger? Additionally, he's refrained from putting any type of Product Activation in any version of OS X. There's not even so much as a CD key to be entered. It simply verifies you're trying to install it on a machine Apple actually built for the purpose, and installs with no hassles. Apple is able to do that primarily because they actually sell their own computer systems, unlike Microsoft. (Hey, another difference!)
I'm not defending Steve Jobs on a personal level. I get the idea that like many successful CEO types, he's arrogant, demanding, and tends to be rude and judgmental. (I'd also question his claimed religious beliefs, given the realities of his lifestyle and character ... but maybe that's a bit unfair, since religion is such a personal thing to begin with.) But none of that is really relevant to whether or not I think he's running his company well. I think without Steve Jobs stepping in, Apple would be dead or at best, completely irrelevant today.
Difference is, Apple is in the business of tying their products together even more closely than Microsoft could ever dream of. They have draconian licensing in place to ensure that you only use specific software on specific hardware and do not modify it. Remember, Apple is both a hardware and a software company. While Microsoft does sell hardware (e.g. mouses) they do not sell whole computers. Compared to Apple, they are actually much more permissive about what you can and cannot modify per the license agreement.
Microsoft has agreements with companies such as Dell that do sell hardware that allow them to modify the operating system and installed software to some extent. This is how you get the mouthful "Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by Dell" in your title bar.
Apple would never allow that -- I imagine allowing any other company to modify the MacOS operating system or their hardware would give Steve Jobs a heart attack.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
No, Apple were arguing that it's illegal to modify someone else's software and resell the modified version, which it quite clearly is. This is nothing to do with the license and everything to do with copyright.