A judge has ruled in favor of Apple in it's copyright-infringement case against Psystar, who build and sell Mac clones running Apple's OS X. According to CNET, the ruling does not include an injunction against Miami-based Psystar as Apple have not yet asked for one.Apple and Psystar both requested a summary judgement, which is a determination made by the judge based on the case's merits. In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup wrote, "In sum, Psystar has violated Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works."
Cupertino-based Apple filed its suit in July 2008, just months after Psystar began selling the Mac clones. Psystar believed it was legally allowed to run Apple's Mac OS X operating system on non-Apple machines, however Apple denied this and stated that the end user license agreement permits use on Apple computers only.
The judge rejected Psystar's contention that it was fair use, stating that the company "does not even attempt to address the four factors used to determine fair use." The Miami-based company also contended that it fell under the "first sale" doctrine, which permits someone who buys copyrighted material to then sell it on. Alsup stated that this doctrine only applies to legal copies, not to "unauthorized copies" produced by Psystar.
Alsup also ruled that Psystar violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. "Psystar has violated the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection barrier and trafficking devices designed for circumvention," he said. He additionally rejected claims that Apple had misused its copyright and that Apple's license was unduly restrictive.
There are still more claims that could go to trial, including breach of contract, trademark infringement and trademark dilution. A hearing for determining remedies is set for December 14th, while the trial is scheduled for January.
Monopoly???? If you think Apple has a monopoly on operating systems then you need to go back to economics class in a hurry. Also, what American monopoly laws are you talking about??? We have none. There are antitrust laws making it illegal for a company with a monopoly to use it to an unfair advantage (that is what MS got in trouble for when they told computer makers that they could only sell Windows if it was the only operating system option they offered and that they could not include any browser other than IE).
Apple’s OS can be licensed anyway they choose. If it was the only OS on Earth and locking it down meant no one else could sell computers then you might have a case, but with Windows and Linux there are other options, not a monopoly, no antitrust issues.
Some might argue that Apple owns a monopoly in the iPod market, and while this isn't strictly relevant to this article, there's nothing actually illegal about a monopoly, it's only when that monopoly is deemed to be anti-competitive. Apple doesn't do anything to prevent other products from getting on the shelf except for market themselves well. The iTunes argument is similar. They are allowed to tie software to a specific device. Sony and companies like them do it for all of their PC compatible devices, they all have software specifically for managing their devices. Apple doesn't force you to only upload their music from their store though. While you can only use iTunes with the device, you can still go to other stores and download their mp3's or use CD's and put them onto the device. You can also get almost anything on the iTunes store, from another source. This is called a natural monopoly and is not illegal as it doesn't prevent or manipulate the consumers choice.
No. The only reason why this is an issue is because the underlying OS software IS accessible. I can think of plenty of examples of hardware+software produced and owned by the same entity where you can't move the software to another product legally. DVRs for example. I can't "rip" the software off my DirectV box, install it on a generic DVR that I make and re-sell it claiming DirectV compatibility.
But by your logic if you are the first to invent something, then you are automatically in violation of anti-trust laws since you are the only one who owns that something.
"Monopoly" is a term that has really been thrown around in recent years and is a great big cleché. Monopoly does not mean that you own some part of the market. Monopoly doesn't even mean that you own ALL of the market. A corporation can own 100% of the market and not have a Monopoly. A monopoly means that an entity owns enough of the market and can keep others from entering the market. Apple cannot keep others from producing an OS and distributing it. They do not control the means of production. And don't try to make this specific about Mac OS. The market is Operating Systems.
You're joking right, what's Apple market share, 6 or 7%?? Monopoly (Antitrust)?
There's many, many operating systems out there that Apple doesn't control.
By your logic any device that uses software that's tied to it's hardware is a monopoly. Somehow Ford has to share its engine control software with you for its fuel controls? Carvewright has to share it's operating system so you can use it on other home woodworking CNC machines? Sony has to share the operating system on the Playstation? Festool has to share it's designs for it's unique Domino Joiner.
Your reasoning is ludicrous.
monopoly |məˈnäpəlē|
noun ( pl. -lies)
1. a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service : areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.
Apple isn't the only supplier of computers, either computer hardware or operating systems. It doesn't have a majority holding on market share. It didn't get to it's current position by it's own means, heck, a decade ago they Apple nearly went belly up. Other computers went out of computer business or exited. Names like Commodore, Atari, Texas Instruments, Sinclair, Tandy Computers, Amstrad, Dragon Data, Ltd., BBC Micro, Coleco Adam and Robotron (I could go on).
Check out Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, you REALLY need to brush up on it.
You are correct; this is a blatant violation of copyright law. I mean the destroying part might be a bit much, but then again we call know that once Apple wins (and they will) Psystar will have lost their primary business model and will probably owe Apple a lot in damages, they will be out of business soon enough.
Yes, hackintoshes are great. I had my hackintosh setup for awhile and it was fun to mess around with. But it is one thing for me as an individual to break the law setting something up for personal use. Setting something up and then re-selling an illegal product is a completely different ball game.
People who are into the hackintosh scene shouldn't be supporting Psystar. Psystar is attracting a lot of attention from Apple which is not good for the hackintosh scene as a whole.
People who are into the hackintosh scene shouldn't be supporting Psystar. Psystar is attracting a lot of attention from Apple which is not good for the hackintosh scene as a whole.
I agree completely. Same with their boot loader now that they sell. They are just ripping people off for not wanting to mess with files a bit and/or don't have the time to.
Agreed. Apple should win this one as it's very blatant and obvious.
Who says they haven't, what have they done against the OSX *86 project?
Nothing, zip, nada.
But when Frystar started selling it preinstalled without a licence to do so that's when they crossed the line. It's really an astoundingly simple concept, I'm at a loss as to why so many people are so block headed about it.
And just a thought...how easy is to win a trial in USA these days...just invoke the DMCA and that's it.
Last edited by sphbecker on 16 Nov 2009 - 14:41
Do they really resell the Apple software? And is that really illegal?
There is a funny thing about the OSX standalone software. The funny thing about OSX when you buy a box of the latest and greatest, is that it is considered an upgrade. Same rules apply as they do in the world of Windows.
Upgrade + No (legal) License = No License to run Upgrade
As it is now, the only legal way to get a full license of OSX is to buy an Apple computer. All box copies of the software are considered upgrades.
This business about "ruining Apple's business model" is irrelevant. The Microsoft antitrust suit ruined Microsoft's then-current business model, but it was illegal.
Like Newegg?
The way I see it, if you build your own system from parts (mobo, cpu, memory etc), then you are a system builder and are entitled to the OEM pricing for Windows.
Unless the DMCA itself is ruled invalid, Apple is safe (because without the DMCA *clothing*, Emperor Apple is well and truly naked).
Yes; I am saying the proprietary nature of OS X is a sham. (If it weren't, modification of OS X, including Snow Leopard, to run on non-Apple hardware would not be so easy to do. Psystar knows it; even Apple itself knows it.) However, that was why Apple dragged in the DMCA. Even though very little of OS X (and none of the critical part of the operating system) uses any encryption, the mere fact that it uses encryption let them invoke the DMCA. (It's the same argument that is still in use today to bar export of certain types of hardware and software to Designated Countries.)
"Neigh!"
It explicitly said the opposite.
No they didn't. They explicitly agreed that the terms of Apple's EULA are legally binding and valid - the court couldn't have moved to summary judgement if this were not the case.
The DMCA circumvention was one of over a dozen claims Apple made. The majority of the case is built on trademark law, copyright law, and competition fairness rules.
No, the DMCA played a very small role in this case. Even if the DMCA is overturned Apple still has more than enough suppport to prevent anybody from setting up a business like Psystar.
No they don't. Is Ford in their "own market" because it has a right to make the Ferrari and (*gasp*) it is proprietary?
Yes you are, because that box copy is an upgrade of Mac OS X. You need a valid license of OSX which you can only acquire by buying a Mac.
Is it technically illegal to run OS X in a Virtual Machine EVEN IF YOU BOUGHT IT? Yes, it is. Same rules apply if you buy an upgrade to Windows 7 and install that onto a machine (virtual or otherwise) with which you did not have a license for.
That depends on your license.
Mac OS X server is licensed to run in a virtualized environment provided that the hardware you're running the virtualization on is a Mac.
Buy a Mac pro, install VMWare, buy 4 copies of Mac OS X server. Install those copies of Mac OS X into VMWare. You're legal.
Not true. This ruling shows that Apple's EULA is enforceable and that license forbids installation and virtualization of Mac OS X (client, not server) and requires that the virtualization environment is running on a Mac.
Mac OS X server is licensed to run in a virtualized environment provided that the hardware you're running the virtualization on is a Mac.
Buy a Mac pro, install VMWare, buy 4 copies of Mac OS X server. Install those copies of Mac OS X into VMWare. You're legal.
Why do you need 4 copies of Mac OS X Server?
For the sake of example I assumed you wanted to run 4 copies of OS X. You need to buy one license for each instance Mac OS X server running in the VM.
If you only wanted to run a single VM instance of Mac OS X server then you'd only buy one license.
Hmm, 4 machines?? (Heh)
If you only wanted to run a single VM instance of Mac OS X server then you'd only buy one license.
Oh lol. Heh, for a minute there I thought you meant Apple required 4 copies before you could run in a virtual environment.
Honestly, since when did nit-picky legality get in the way of what a Computer user wanted to do?
Not unless the DMCA gets ruled invalid. Never mind that none of the critical OS X bits are (or have ever been) encrypted (Apple has said that publicly); it is that there are encrypted portions of the OS *at all* that let Apple sneak the DMCA camel into Psystar's legal-defense tent. The mere fact that there is a portion of the OS that is encrypted (it's not critical, and in fact, most "Hackintosh" patches don't touch it) let Apple invoke the DMCA.
With that battle nearly impossible for Apple to lose, Apple will also likely go after hardwre-based patch kits (such as EFI-X) using the saame argument.
I doubt that it is intentional. But most people on this board should be tech savvy enough to know that Mac and MAC are two different things. One is a brand name for a computer systems, the other is (suppose to be) a unique identification string for a NIC.
Nic, surely
NIC is an acronym and is in all-caps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_card). Just like MAC is an acronym and in all caps. Mac, however, is an abbreviation of Macintosh just like Nic is an abbreviation of Nicholas.
Too bad sarcasm doesn't really suit you...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.