Slashdot Mirror
Mac Clone Maker Saga Ends As SCOTUS Denies Appeal
CWmike writes "The four-year-old saga of Psystar, a Florida Mac clone maker that was crushed by Apple, ended Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear its appeal of a lower court ruling. The decision to not consider the case (download PDF) upheld a ruling last September by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That ruling confirmed a permanent injunction against Psystar that prevented the company from copying, using or selling OS X, and blocked it from selling machines with Apple's operating system preinstalled. 'We are sad,' said K.A.D. Camera of the Houston firm Camera & Sibley LLP, in an email reply today to a request for comment. Camera represented Psystar in its bid to get its appeal heard. 'I expect the Supreme Court will eventually take a case on this important issue.' Last year, Camera had said, 'This is far from over,' after the Ninth Circuit's decision. Apparently, it is."
Hackintosh efforts by hackers though. It was a noble effort Psystar!
Even if they had a case they still stole copyrighted code from OSx86 and Rebel EFI was stolen from Boot 132 EFI.
Boo hoo, they're dead.
Hackers/hobbyists have zero to do with a company selling a product which affirmatively violates another company's software license.
I could understand if your computer was infected by AIDS and you didn't have a choice, but why would somebody ruin a perfectly good computer by smearing Oh Es Hex all over its hard drive?
Keep your dick in the vag, and keep your computer on linucks or windoze.
I never saw what Psystar did that was actually wrong. They bought copies of software, installed them on machines, then sold those machines. That doesn't seem so bad to me. Yes, they violated the EULA that you're only allowed to install OS X on Apple hardware, or something stupid and unconscionable like that. But I have an extremely hard time seeing EULA non-compliance as a bad thing, and I think we're collectively in a worse place for it having been successfully enforced.
Type from my Apple-branded Mac. :-/
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
This gets me that first sale doctrine doesn't matter. The DMCA (which is overkill and bad legislation) takes precedence. The Psystar case reminds me of the Atari ruling, when Atari didn't want to allow third-party developers to make games for their console. Imagine if there were no third-party developers today. If Psystar legally purchased OSX software licenses, why shouldn't they be able to legally resell them with hardware? We have judges protecting a monopoly and frankly I don't understand it.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
It's just a matter of time before education becomes too expensive, there are no places left to do pure research, and there is no way for a company, individual, or organization, to market new, innovative products. Our mobile technology and infrastructure is third-world, our broadband internet lags behind every other first world country, and the only component left in your computer manufacturered in the US is the processor.
America is dying, and it's rulings like this that are causing it. Someday, market forces will catch up with us, and this country's economy will stagnate and fail in front of the other 5 billion people on this planet who don't live with such laws.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I see the same damn thing. I hope we don't get our ass handed to us but maybe it'd force us to re-evaluate some backward policies.
The real lesson here is that Apple is working hard to erode your rights. Apple is not a good company. And yet some people still believe that Apple is worthy of their money. Sigh.
What did they "take" from Apple? They paid full retail for the copies of OS X that they installed on the machines they sold.
Apple pays for R&D costs on OSX form hardware sales primarily, which is why Apple licenses OS X only for sale on systems they build (and to prevent support costs from increasing).
By going against the license they were "taking" the expected hardware revenue that would go with a first OS X sale.
And as noted it would cost Apple more over time with increased support costs and a probable erosion of customer goodwill (when Apple could or would not help those users).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
then buying an engine from ford and sticking it into a kit car and re-selling it as your own brand name car. Oh yah forgot this involves that magical thing called software which when you deal with you have to throw out all common sense.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
...sold the hardware with INSTRUCTIONS in a story form.
Why a story? Because fiction is usually protected speech. See "The Turner Diaries" for a right-wing agitprop example.
If you want a Hackintosh you had better be competent to load software anyway.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
You can complain about Windows and Microsoft all you want, but at least they let you install their software on any hardware you want. Apple wants to control you from the motherboard up, marking up their products to ridiculous prices for overrated hardware. They do it with computers, iPod, iPhone, everything. The first down-mod from a Mac lover will just be further evidence of the truth.
sudo make me a sandwich
This gets me that first sale doctrine doesn't matter.
I agree with you in some ways, it feels wrong that first sale is going out the window.
But in another way, it seems logically reasonable that a wholly digital product should be able to live by different rules. This is what enables things like cheap games on Steam, and other cheap digital artifacts - because there can be an expectation of volume instead of a small number of purchases made initially then floating around the system dampening sales.
As we transition to wholly digital products there will be some confusion around this, like digital books priced the same as "real" ones...
Think of it this way, although OS X does not fall under First Sale, you can resell any Apple computer without issue - and Apple could not prevent that if they wanted to. You can still sell OS X, it just has to be with Apple hardware.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Probably the crucial reason why we have small personal computers so widespread today is that Microsoft (after writing then selling IBM the IBM-DOS) then turned around and sold MS-DOS to the IBM clone makers. MS-DOS was of course written behind a firewall so as not to infringe the IBM-DOS contract. And IBM did not contest the issue, because the US trustbusters had just finished disassembling Bell into the babybells.
So maybe not a direct steal of IOS (or OSX or whatever), but Apple should be forced to offer OSX at a "reasonable" price, and the test of similarity of appearance should be weak.
Not that I am a fan of MS, but he was a major originator of the concept of "duplicating" OS and other software, and that turned out to benefit consumers.
Since OS/X is based on Linux, they're required to furnish the source code, and they don't, yet we don't hear a peep out of anyone about it, do we?
Couldn't psystar just sell computers that are hardware compatible with OSX, without putting OS X on it? Then users can install whatever OS they want.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Who wants to clone a piece of dung anyhow.
I like real computers, not expensive pieces of electronic furniture.
I'm glad to see that this made both the news feed and the ad bars.
It is worth noting that this new precedent is only for the 9th circuit--contrary to the summary's implication, the Supreme Court refusing the hear it just means that they didn't overturn the 9th Circuit, not that they upheld the 9th circuit. There's a world of difference, because if they had upheld it, it would be law throughout the United States.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
what if a car maker trying puling the same stuff? like the same kind of lock in.
Like you can only use the dealer to get service and you can only use our gas.
I never saw what Psystar did that was actually wrong. They bought copies of software, installed them on machines, then sold those machines. That doesn't seem so bad to me. Yes, they violated the EULA that you're only allowed to install OS X on Apple hardware, or something stupid and unconscionable like that. But I have an extremely hard time seeing EULA non-compliance as a bad thing, and I think we're collectively in a worse place for it having been successfully enforced.
Type from my Apple-branded Mac. :-/
Suppose I buy a retail copy of Windows and install it on, say, three PCs, which I use at my small business. Would you see anything wrong with that? After all, I paid for my Windows CD. The only thing "wrong" that I did was ignore an obscure clause in the Windows EULA that said that the particular license I paid for was only valid for a single PC.
Is it right that Microsoft, through one sentence of legalese, should be able to arbitrarily restrict what I do with the copy of Windows that I bought and paid for? I didn't "steal" the install media. I even didn't download Windows off of a .torrent without paying. It's not as if Microsoft lost anything tangible; indeed, they received more money from me than they would if I hadn't bought that copy of Windows for those three PCs. And Microsoft's costs didn't increase one cent, either. There is absolutely no technical reason why I should not be able to do this with the product that I purchased. The only reason why that clause exists in the license is to maximize Microsoft's profit.
Ad yet, for some reason, you probably find nothing unusual about this totally arbitrary limitation.
Yet you get all up in arms when a different vendor places an equally arbitrary restriction on the software they distribute?
Lexmark tried this with ink and courts did not let them get away with it.
Apple is saying that only the Chinese have the right to build machines that can run their software, not that you can't write/sell software to run on their machines.
Sounds logical, sound logic.
And I applaud the legal system that defends to the death, their right to do so. How much does it cost and where can I get one?
(I hope it comes free of all that socialist welfare stuff.) Can you assure me that if people can't afford the banking system that goes with it, they will be thrown out of their homes and the premises locked up until they decay from within?
Nothing smells like the smell of excess.
In Sony/Microsoft's case, they sold systems with only the HOPE that people would also buy other products. There was no force of law to compel anyone too, so that is very much Sony/Microsoft's problem if people only buy the hardware.
For Apple though, they are bundling hardware/software and selling them as a unit, with OS X itself being sold as an update to an existing system. Apple has force of law (currently) in selling the updates for Apple hardware only, not to be used for other purposes. So that is not "Apple's Problem" in any way, as they are simply smart enough to use the law to make sure the product bundling works from the standpoint of revenue, and the other company was silly enough to not see the law was very clear on the legality of this.
If the law changes then it is indeed "Apple's Problem", and they will have to figure out some other combination of pricing to make the revenue work for them.
I'm not even saying the way the law works right now is the way it should be, I am just saying that is what it is right now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That Apple would rather compete in the courts than in features.
what about dell and others who use a master image? do you thing they install windows by hand on each system?
First Sale should apply for any scarce good. As long as they are creating artificial scarcity via copyright, they should have to live with the consequences. If I buy a scarce good, I should be able to resell it to someone else who can use it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
ok Sony try suing the US air force for miss useing PS3.
...but in the US the content of the Turner Diaries would be protected as political speech even without the 'story' format.
You can even dress up as a Nazi and walk down the street espousing fascist propaganda and it is protected speech. To the extent that you don't get your head split open by the crowd that forms.
what if BOB's rent a car had a EULA saying use must buy gas from us at $0.20-$0.30 more a gal then the high priced station in the area?
They've got a licence from Microsoft that lets them do so - they'd be swiftly sued otherwise.
It never ceases to amaze me what can be bought with piles and piles of cash. Granted, appeals court justices have probably been on the list since the title was invented, but it's still surprising to see it done so blatantly.
and chain has no / weak IP laws and copy's others IP comping out with knock offs.
Some times with corers cut like with there high speed rail.
it seems logically reasonable that a wholly digital product should be able to live by different rules
Why?
The only reason you give is volume of sales. But there are plenty of things IRL that sell in huge volumes and yet first sale doctrine still applies.
If Psystar legally purchased OSX software licenses, why shouldn't they be able to legally resell them with hardware?
They could. But what they were doing (initially when they got sued) was installing OS X, in violation of the EULA, and then reselling the hardware with OS X on it.
If they'd just thrown the OS X disc in the box, they'd have never been sued.
Not quite. Copyright grants the owner the right to prevent others from copying their copyrighted work. However, there are numerous exceptions to that grant in the law. Thus, the copyright holder does not have the right to deny you making a backup copy, since the right to prohibit backups is not given to the copyright holder.
Just remember that the creator of a work has no right to it whatsoever in our system, except what is explicitly granted by copyright law. All other rights are reserved by the people, such as the right to resell a copyrighted product (such as a book, or a piece of software).
As far as this SCOTUS denial, this was a bad company to be doing this. They didn't have all their ducks in a row, and they were a pretty shady operation in the first place. Being an entity of questionable repute with the authorities is how 2600 lost their free-speech DMCA case. At least Emmanuel Goldstein was smart enough not to appeal to SCOTUS to avoid a country-wide precedent. He had hoped a more respectable outfit would come forth with a case.
Well, they aren't in the business of selling gas. But they can require specific fuel. Low grade fuel in a high compression engine will damage it. E85 fuel is specifically forbidden in some vehicles, and will damage parts of your fuel system. Using the wrong oil or coolant will also void your warranty on related components.
They can enforce 3rd party parts and repairs. If you have 3rd party parts on your vehicle which may have caused another part to fail, the warranty will not cover it.
For example, if I go out and have a supercharge installed on my car, and due to this the clutch fails, the driveshaft is twisted and goes out of balance, and the differential gears or bearings are damaged, the dealer will show a nice quote for replacing all of the non-OEM parts plus labor.
Another example would be if you had a 3rd party shop work on it, and they broke something, it won't be covered. I have seen this with turn signals in relation to trailer hookups. Many newer vehicles use computers rather than mechanical switches to control turn signals and other lights. If the 3rd party shop hooks up the lights wrong, it will damage that computer, leaving you without turn signals or brake lights. You will have to pay for the repair. It doesn't matter that you just bought the vehicle new, and drove it 1 mile to get the trailer lighting connector attached.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
This is an excuse, and whatever idiot said "Power tends to currupt..." put the cart before the horse.
Power DOES NOT CORRUPT, and that business about absolute power is a fundamental absurdity as there is in fact no such thing as absolute power. All power is checked, eventually, just ask Emperor Gaius Claudius Caesar Germanicus (A.K.A. Caligula), the day after his own guards turned him into a giant fucking pin-cushion.
The truth is power attracts the corrupt in the same general fashion that shit attracts flies. It's the smell. There have been good rulers, and the difference between the beneficent rulers of history, and the Nero's, the Napoleons, the Bush's, etc., is that the beneficent ones did not seek power for their own enjoyment, they generally were called upon to serve, and did so with humility, without letting the job go to their heads.
People like Romney, (not to turn this into a flamefest,) are only after power to continue their ego-trip. Men of that sort should NEVER EVER EVER be let anywhere near the halls of power, let alone be given the keys to them.
Apple's iAssholes are similarly focused on stealing the most they can for their corporate masters, including in many cases themselves, and that means making sure no one else, in as far as they have the power to do anything about it, makes so much as a penny that THEY could have themselves made, at their expense.
I suspect the internal benchmark in the courts' thinking is "tangible physical good" v. "intangible infinitely-reproducible digital good". Licensing of a copyrighted tangible good has been shot down originally in Bobbs-Merril v. Straus , the case which introduced First Sale as a legal doctrine.
I suspect the tangible nature of the ink cartridges in Lexmark v. SCC was the distinction: the ink cartridges and the printer itself are tangible, and the "software" in question (DRM firmware in the both the cartridges and the printer strictly for the purposes of enforcing "genuine Lexmark") didn't rise to the level of a critical functional element, so licensing requirements of this software weren't binding and First Sale won out.*
With Apple v. Psystar, the software is the only product, and it's utterly intangible. It seems that courts give pure-licensing arrangements for software a lot of credibility in these types of case, and one part of "licensed, not sold" is that First Sale doesn't apply.
*Actually, First Sale never came up in Lexmark v. SCC, but the thinking in the appellate ruling feels kind of like First Sale. Ideas like the software in the cartridge and the printer were functional components, so not particularly creative and of dubious copyrightability; or that ownership of the printer hardware was an implicit license to run any software necessary to operate the printer, including non-Lexmark firmware in non-Lexmark cartridges.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
PerC happily sells hackintoshes and Apple can't do shit about it.
For some things it sucks to live in the USA.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Why?
It's not volume of sales. It's the fact that the supply is infinite. So instead of having a model where you try to sell enough to pay for production, you simply keep selling them forever at a lower cost to a wider range of people.
To be honest I have not thought the argument out fully, just inherently it seems OK for companies to at least be able to work digital goods this way if they want to, and I'm trying to understand why that seems OK.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
NEVER directly compete with Apple.
You will lose. Apple Legal will utterly destroy you. You will wish you were never born.
Enjoy your bankruptcy.
what if a car maker trying puling the same stuff? like the same kind of lock in.
Like you can only use the dealer to get service and you can only use our gas.
More like what if a Ford dealer offered you half-price gas if you bought a Focus from them, and then you sued them because they refused to let you fill up your Mercedes at the same price.
Even retail copies of windows allows you to perform a custom/unattended/automatic install. With a little work, you can create your own installer with the operating system, drivers, application software and such. All legal.
If the law changes, we will all get the wonderful benefit of paying MS level retail prices for OSX and wonderful DRM and activation.
An interesting test to be sure.
I would think that thought while APple would probably raise the price, they still would not use DRM or activation. Those are things that would add substantial cost to Apple for no benefit; Apple understands they don't lose sales from piracy and so tend to do little about it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
First Sale should apply for any scarce good. As long as they are creating artificial scarcity via copyright, they should have to live with the consequences. If I buy a scarce good, I should be able to resell it to someone else who can use it.
You can buy MacOS X with a license. The license allows you to install the software on a Mac, but not on a different computer. Instead of installing it, you can sell that copy of MacOS X together with the license. First Sale Doctrine in action. Whoever buys it has a license that allows them to install the software on a Mac, but not on a different computer.
what about oil changes?
What they said must goto the dealer and pay a LOT MORE then jiffy lube for the same oil?
Maybe everyone was there by mistake, thinking it was a Hollister or something.
Which you do everytime you install it. So, to install it you have to accept the license--and once you've accepted the license then you run afoul of the law when you break that license (which says, among other things, not to install it on non-Apple hardware).
I remember seeing mac clones for sale, what happened to those?
I will leave this link here for people to see how seriously they should take these quotes of a "law firm" commenting on this issue. http://abovethelaw.com/kiwi-camara/
I'd like the licensability of software to be outlawed personally.
Me too. I hate the GPL.
It is late, and I probably won't get a response, but I am curious (as opposed to trolling, though some may see it that way) as to how this is legal:
Car analogy: Assuming ford sold extra-premium gas and cars. The extra-premium gas was only sold to people who swore they would pour it into a ford car. If a car salesman opens a lot where he says "You can drive any of these (non-ford) cars off the lot with a full tank of extra premium gas that I legally bought from the ford pump" and ford tries to shut him down, would that be fine?
Would a legal contract saying "I promise to use this fuel only in Ford cars, even though I am buying it at full price at the pump" be held up in court?
OK, to all the posters talking about EULAs vs contract law and so on---I tend to agree with you about shrink-wrap licenses, however that was not the issue in this case. In order to get OS X to run on their hardware, Psystar had to modify it. There's nothing in the first-sale doctrine that allows one to create a derivative work and sell it, thus Psystar was doomed from the very first day of the lawsuit.
And as another poster (zonker) pointed out, they didn't even come up with those mods on their own. They stole it from open source projects, and denied what they had done. In fact, throughout the case, their claims about how they loaded OS X onto their hardware and got it running changed every couple of weeks. Every time it was pointed out to them how their claimed process violated copyright, their response was "oh well, that's not actually how we do it, our spokesperson misspoke, here's how we really do it"--over, and over, and over again.
In short, they were lying, thieving, sacks of shit.
I swear I read that as SCROTUS.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START