Slashdot Mirror
Psystar Loses Appeal In Apple Case
The dispute between Mac cloner Psystar and Apple has been a long and twisty one; now, reader UnknowingFool writes that "Last week, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled mostly against Psystar in their appeal of their case with Apple. The Court found for Apple in that they did not misuse copyright by having conditions in the OS X license. Psystar won on one point in which some of the court orders should have not been sealed."
It's not too bad - what do you think would happen to Linux's GPL if the court had ruled that all you have to do to ignore the distribution license is buy it from someone else? You can't just buy a copy of an OS, make a copy, and then sell the copy. For that you need a license. In the case of Apple, they obviously won't give Pystar a license. In the case of Linux, the GPL allows you to do this - but then you need to provide the source in a reasonable way.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
There was never any question that Pystar was in the wrong. Their activities were blatantly and obviously illegal.
Their whole market was based on selling hardware to run software that wasn't licensed to run on that hardware.
Their lawyers would have had to be completely incompetent buffoons to lose the case.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You can't just buy a copy of an OS, make a copy, and then sell the copy.
As I understand it, this would only apply in Pystar's case if "installing OS X from it's original media" counts as "making a copy". IIRC, they purchased install media from Apple, installed it to non-apple hardware, then sold the hardware and the install media together.
So far as I can tell, selling the bare system, the install media, and the method of installation alltogether as a bundle should be A-OK (install media under first-sale), but pre-installing it then selling the same thing is somehow doubleplusungood.
I'm sure this will make those free market morons happy
Have you ever carried on a conversation with a libertarian or an objectivist, or whomever else you might classify as a "free market moron?" They would tell you that Psystar was in the right, that Psystar was contributing in a positive way to the economy and to technology (by lowering the price of hardware needed to run Mac OS X), and that Apple is abusing the justice system by using it to attack a legitimate competitor.
Palm trees and 8
If you install your legally bought copy of OSX on some non apple hardware then probably yes it is illegal.
However,
making your own hackingtosh is not going to worry Apple. The words 'small fry' come to mind.
Paystar were trying to make a business out of it.
That was big enough to get Apple's attention.
In some ways this is similar to HP. you can get a 'hobby' license for VMS for free. Use that free copy of VMS on a commercial venture and the HP lawyers will be after you.
In some ways this is similar to Oracle. you can download a copy of their RDBMS for free. Use that copy in a production environment and Oracle's lawyer will be after you.
Notice a pattern?
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Never read so much uninformed, belligerently ignorant drivel, by posters that don't know what the word license means, or even that Apple only distributes OS-X as an upgrade outside the purchase of a Mac system.
The nub of the case is that Apple licenses the software rather than sells it and has the right to control how the copy is used even after they sell it to the customer. Which is bullshit, bordering on fraud considering how the products are being advertised, but ultimately is now precedent.
Hello? That is exactly how everyone from MS to IBM describes their software. The court of appeals noted that. Why single out Apple for something the entire industry does. Even in the case of open source software, it is the same. You don't own GPL software; you license it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
When Snow Leopard released in 2009, you could buy both an upgrade option (~$29 and there were other assorted family packs of upgrades) and if you didn't have Leopard (10.5), there was a full version option (it was the Mac Box Set ~$169), which came with bundled with iLife and iWork since Tiger wasn't considered an upgrade option for the Snow Leopard installer. Tiger also had a full install box you could get for ~$199 back when it released a few years before.
It has only been with the new Lion release that they've gone upgrade only.
Your Apple history appears to be what is uninformed or is at least revisionist; you can even still get the full Snow Leopard installs off Amazon.
Psystar was doing their bundled installs before the upgrade-only download path was put together by Apple.
Now, I don't know if psystar was buying the Mac Box Set's or if they were just getting the $29 upgrade and selling it as 'full' . . . but I doubt it makes a difference since even the Mac Box Set wasn't intended to go on non-apple branded hardware; even with it being a full version.
I do not rent it and I may use it in any legal manner.
That's just not true.
Copyright itself is completely artificial - don't look for any sense of order or justice in it. Humans share information naturally - it is unnatural to restrict it.
In that context, why are you arguing with these judges on the interpretation of the law? Maybe the law should be changed to do as you say - only allow the EULA to extend additional rights. I'm fine with that. I happen to think non-commercial copyright should be abolished and commercial copyright should be set to a short term, like patents. Yeah, this would screw up the GPL, but I think it would be worth it.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
To my mind, software upgrades are an economically efficient and pro-user offering. They are good for both the production and use side of the equation, allowing users to pay directly for the additional cost of development since their last version rather then all the original work and value that went into the product. They allow developers to reward their own supporters and more efficiently allocate resources. Additionally, "upgrades" should be (again, from a user perspective) simply full versions, identical, except cheaper and for existing users. This is how all commercial software I use works as well.
However, the entire concept of upgrades depends completely on legal licensing: that I can have a clause that says "you may not use this unless you previously owned a full version". I already see a number of posts, both here on Slashdot and on other forums (such as the comments with the Ars Technica article on this story), that are enraged at the result, and that argue that Psystar was "adding value" by "lowering hardware costs". The underlying argument is that, if a piece of software is sold, that should be that. However, how do those of you who argue for that square it with upgrading? Do you simply agree with the App Store take, where upgrades don't exist at all? Or do you have some other way of squaring things away?
As things have existed, Mac OS X offerings have all been upgrades and have been priced accordingly. There seems to be a reasonable consideration on both sides here: buyers pay less money, but in exchange have the restriction of needing to have a Mac as Apple has chosen to build their development around an integrated model. Do some of you think that such integrated models should be illegal, regardless of what benefits they offer? Should Apple be required by law to sell a "full" version of Mac OS X, and would you actually be willing to pay what that might cost (ie., if they said "full version, $400")? I'm genuinely curious about people's thoughts around this.
They do license the discs. You are only allowed to use them in certain ways; it's not as restrictive as "you must use Sony players", but it does restrict use to exclude things like copying, distribution, public performance and so on.
Microsoft have already got legal history of being a monopoly.
Being a monopoly isn't per-se illegal, but abusing it is. So it wouldn't be a great stretch to say "the rules would be different for Microsoft".
They were resellers; however, they didn't merely resell unopened OS X boxes. They also modified OS X to run on non-Apple hardware and sold them along with the unmodified boxes. The unmodified boxes are not copyright infringement; the modified OS X was. In the Apple, Psystar did not contest that they violated Apple's copyrights when they did so; they said that Apple imposing conditions on their license violated First Sale. The court of Appeals noted that OS X like many software is not bought but licensed therefore First Sale does not apply.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Try reading Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus which is the basis for 17 USC 109. Then you can read Universal Music Group v. Augusto.
The court should have ruled in favor of Psystar because copyright law is only supposed to kick in when somebody actually makes a copy, and Psystar didn't do that (installing the software doesn't count; there's a specific exception in the law allowing that).
Here is what Psystar did: The took OS X on an Apple machine, then modified it to run on a non-Apple machine by replacing the bootloader and some system libraries. Then they used that copy to mass install onto non-Apple machines. Then they sold the non-Apple machines. I don't see how you can argue that they didn't "copy" it. If Psystar did not sell the non-Apple machines, they are still within copyright laws. Selling them constitutes redistribution and copyright infringement. Copyright law clearly says that modification and redistribution require the permission of the copyright owner which Psystar did not get.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
On the one hand the 9th Circuit that just mailing a disc to a DJ counts as a sale because it has been "placed into the stream of commerce" even though the publisher of the says it isn't. On the other hand they say a disc that's sold in a store in a box like anything else that is sold in stores doesn't count as a sale because the publisher says it isn't. What is the difference?
You can try pointing that out, but it's entirely irrelevant because an owner of a copy has the right under the First Sale Doctrine to re-sell that copy.
The situation the GPL relies on is entirely different, where the owner of a copy DUPLICATES IT and then distributes the new copies.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Can Psystar just sell the hardware and OSX in its own box, and let YOU break the EULA?
Psystar _can_ not do anything, because they just lost their appeal against Apple, and now they have to cough up about two million dollars, mostly as fines for DMCA violation, which they can't.
If you ask whether Psystar could have just sold the hardware and MacOS X in its own box, and let YOU break the EULA, they could have done that. There would have been no copyright infringement (the court ordered them to pay $60,000 for making about 700-800 copies of MacOS X illegally, very cheap compared to what the recording industry tries to charge for distributing songs). But there would have been DMCA violation, because Apple has code in the OS that prevents it from running on anything that is not a Macintosh. It is not difficult to get around this, but that is a DMCA violation. And selling a box where MacOS X can be installed unchanged is a DMCA violation, and since Psystar did that, they were ordered to pay $2,500 per Psystar computer sold on that basis.
The other point is this: Why would you buy a Psystar computer like this? The whole Hackintosh community wouldn't touch a Psystar computer with a barge pole; first because they have a strong feeling that Psystar ripped them off, and second because depending on your skill, you can either build your own computer from parts a lot cheaper and better, or you can buy a PC cheaper and better from a dozen of excellent companies that will actually provide you with service and a warranty that is worth its money. The only people buying Psystar would be people who naively thought their offer was legit. How do you think these people would react if they are told that in order to use MacOS X, they have to commit copyright infringement? And if Psystar didn't tell them, don't you think that would get them into legal trouble?
As for your assertion about redistribution, last i heard those copies were pristine installed by the end user.
What part of "Psystar modified OS X to run on non-Apple machines, installed it on non-Apple machines and sold the machines" is not clear?
If you're argument were correct, then there'd be no reason why Psystar couldn't keep distributing the patch set and machines with the end user left to procure a copy of OSX for themselves. This ruling goes way beyond that and bans the patchset as well as Psystar selling compatible software.
And where was Psystar getting the patch sets? They were taking Apple updates, modifying them, and redistributing them. The court has no problem with Psystar selling compatible software. Psystar was taking Apple's software and modifying it and redistributing it which is against what copyright law allows.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
On top of that, there is no law saying that folks can't replace any libraries on their computer that they want.
And that's not what this lawsuit is about at all either. This is about someone making modifications to Apples copyrighted software and selling it. It has nothing to do with GRUB or LILO, it's nonsense to even drag them into this. The point is: Apple is selling some software available under certain conditions, if you modify their software in violations of their conditions you are breaking copyright law. This is why you cannot re-license GPL code under the BSD license unless you are in fact the copyright holder. This is inherently a good thing.
-- Linux user #369862
Sorry, I need to learn to internet I guess
You own the copy and you can do whatever you want to with it within the bounds of the law. That copy is _yours_ to do with as you please.
The bounds of the law specifically say you cannot modify and redistribute without the copyright owner's permission. Apple never gave Psystar such permission. Psystar lost on summary judgement on that point which means their defenses were so weak, the judge did not feel the need to go to trial.
At least, that's how it's supposed to work (and does work for everything except software); this court decision was wrong.
If the court had decided that Apple cannot dictate terms of their software, it means the GPL has no enforceability. MS can copy parts of Linux into Windows 8, sell Windows 8, and never release the source code. Oracle can take IBM's AIX and sell them on Sun machines.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Do you know any facts of this case? As I explained in numerous other posts to you and in the summary judgement, Psystar made modifications then mass installed their modified copies onto non-Apple machines:
The copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner. As stated, Psystar made an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X from a Mac mini that was placed onto an "imaging station" and then used a "master copy" to make many more unauthorized copies that were installed on individual Psystar computers. The first-sale defense does not apply to those unauthorized copies.
Even if Psystar had not used a mass install, they still modified OS X and then redistributed it. USC 117(b) says specifically that the copyright owner is the only one that can give permissions to do so:
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. — Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.