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."
Just for fun..
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?
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!
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?
Standard answer to all these types of comment: Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and hence is subject to antitrust regulations. Apple hasn't (certainly not in computers - more debatably in music) and isn't. There really is one law for Microsoft and another for Apple.
As far as copyright is concerned. As long as the law accepts that the software you "buy" is licensed rather than owned, the copyright holder can impose whatever terms they want. The principle is no different from saying that some versions of Vista could not be used on virtual machines, or that the OEM Windows that came with your old PC can't be used on your new PC.
However, since Microsoft have ~90% of the personal computer operating system market, Intel have ~80% of the personal computer CPU market, any attempt to tie them would likely be challenged under antitrust law.
Psystar tried the antitrust line against Apple earlier in the case but it was thrown out on the grounds that Apple didn't have a dominant position in the personal computer OS market and the judge din't buy the argument that having a monopoly on the "OS X market" didn't count ("Brand X" will always have a monopoly on "Brand X" products. Duh!)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.
The judge should have thrown *this* case out based upon the doctrine of first sale.
Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate Mac OS X disk into each machine, retarded.
Well, no, the case hinged on the fact that Psystar loaded an image of OSX (permissible format shifting), modified the image (permissible fair use), and then copied that image (impermissible reproduction), and sold the modified image (impermissible creation and distribution of a derivative work). But sure, go on believing that the judge is a moron who doesn't understand network installs, in spite of the fact that he's expressly referred to them twice in his decisions. I'm sure you know better.
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.
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.
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.