[Updated 8/04] Apple Sues Unauthorized Clone Maker Psystar

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

To everybody that says apple will loose, Apple is not going after the " Limited to Apple Hardware approach", they are going after Psystar along the ground of Modifying Apple Software ( 10.5.4 Patch ), which is alot more solid and will more effectively hold up in court.

So they are not going after EULA violation along lines of the Only apple Hardware thing, they are going after Copyright Infrigment

[Brian M. Veteran]

I'm surprised how many people think Apple would sue only under the EULA...I'm seriously feeling the entire Copyright Infringement / Illegal Distribution angle here. :)

On those points, IMO:

a) They haven't copied any material. They've installed it onto a computer and modified it to work well (by pre-installing windows, adding custom features, branding explorer in Windows - something which is common among PC OEMS, are you not modifying system files?). In fact, I don't think they've had to modify any files in order to get it to install, I think they use a standard leopard disk.

Distributing the updates I'm not too sure about - technically, the only thing they would be doing here is breaching the license (they're not passing the update off as their own work, they've just made it work). If this *was* illegal, the amount of times I've had to hack Windows Updates around for customers I'd be in jail right about now :p

b) Not sure about in the US, but here in the UK, if I purchase something, it is my prerogative to resell it. If I am doing it as a business, I have to register for VAT, but there is nothing whatsoever stopping me reselling things that I have legally purchased.

That's how I see it anyway. Sorry about the constant comparisons to Windows - It's just I don't see how there can be one rule for one piece of software, and another for another.

[Dev Null Zen]

I'm surprised how many people think Apple would sue only under the EULA...I'm seriously feeling the entire Copyright Infringement / Illegal Distribution angle here. :)

Because if they try the Copyright Infringement angle, that will play right into the antitrust angle. It will get thrown out there that the only reason their code is the way it is, is so that their hardware partners make larger profits, so they can pay more to be the only hardware available for OSX. The fact that it is easily altered so it can be used on most x86 hardware is what could lose it for them.

[Cara Veteran]

On those points, IMO:

a) They haven't copied any material. They've installed it onto a computer and modified it to work well (by pre-installing windows, adding custom features, branding explorer in Windows - something which is common among PC OEMS, are you not modifying system files?). In fact, I don't think they've had to modify any files in order to get it to install, I think they use a standard leopard disk.

Distributing the updates I'm not too sure about - technically, the only thing they would be doing here is breaching the license (they're not passing the update off as their own work, they've just made it work). If this *was* illegal, the amount of times I've had to hack Windows Updates around for customers I'd be in jail right about now :p

b) Not sure about in the US, but here in the UK, if I purchase something, it is my prerogative to resell it. If I am doing it as a business, I have to register for VAT, but there is nothing whatsoever stopping me reselling things that I have legally purchased.

That's how I see it anyway. Sorry about the constant comparisons to Windows - It's just I don't see how there can be one rule for one piece of software, and another for another.

What I do is compare what they are doing to a more intrusive version of what the old Autopatcher did. Though I liked it it wasn't allowed since they were distributing Microsoft software without permission. Also, just because you have made a work around before doesn't mean you'd be in jail, it just takes a high enough profile incident of it for the original company (MS/Apple) to take notice and then pursue the ones involved.

Pystar not only is doing that but making changes to the actual code and distributing it...

Just my POV on this...

[NateB1]

I think they use an EFI emulator that runs underneath OS X, so they technically aren't modifying/hacking any system files. Either that or a custom EFI chip that acts like the one inside a Mac.

If they aren't indeed modifying/hacking any system files, I can definitely see them winning.

[mad_onion]

Not sure about in the US, but here in the UK, if I purchase something, it is my prerogative to resell it. If I am doing it as a business, I have to register for VAT, but there is nothing whatsoever stopping me reselling things that I have legally purchased.

but you purchase a license to use the software and that license comes with restrictions right? and in the case of apple they restrictions are pretty heavy.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

Microsoft Specifically allows the branding/custom features/Pre-Install, there are registry key's/settings for it

Microsoft shutdown the AutoPatcher for almost the same reasons Psystar is being sued, with exception that psystar is actually modifying them

On those points, IMO:

a) They haven't copied any material. They've installed it onto a computer and modified it to work well (by pre-installing windows, adding custom features, branding explorer in Windows - something which is common among PC OEMS, are you not modifying system files?). In fact, I don't think they've had to modify any files in order to get it to install, I think they use a standard leopard disk.

Distributing the updates I'm not too sure about - technically, the only thing they would be doing here is breaching the license (they're not passing the update off as their own work, they've just made it work). If this *was* illegal, the amount of times I've had to hack Windows Updates around for customers I'd be in jail right about now :p

b) Not sure about in the US, but here in the UK, if I purchase something, it is my prerogative to resell it. If I am doing it as a business, I have to register for VAT, but there is nothing whatsoever stopping me reselling things that I have legally purchased.

That's how I see it anyway. Sorry about the constant comparisons to Windows - It's just I don't see how there can be one rule for one piece of software, and another for another.

[giga Veteran]

I think they use an EFI emulator that runs underneath OS X, so they technically aren't modifying/hacking any system files. Either that or a custom EFI chip that acts like the one inside a Mac.

If they aren't indeed modifying/hacking any system files, I can definitely see them winning.

Why do they tell users to run their "scripted installer" then?

Remember, it takes a really long time to download. It will download through our installer. Do not manually download the update from the Apple website. The updater will do that for you. Also remember to allow the computer to reboot itself when it is on the gray Apple loading screen.

The update for Leopard 10.5.4 is available through Leopard's native Software Update utility for users who have run our 10.5.3 scripted installer or whose computers shipped with 10.5.3 Leopard. Just click the Apple on the top-left of the screen and select "Software Update" to run the built-in Software Update application.

A 1.6GB download for 10.5.3 from Psystar...

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:KNzED...;cd=1&gl=us

[Hurmoth]

I see Apple losing this case, I seriously do. Psytar isn't making money on OS X because they're paying for a license. Apple is only losing money on the hardware, and considering the 1984 ruling, Apple doesn't stand a chance. At most, Pystar will be forced to stop offering modified versions of OS X.

But if Psytar has no interest in settling out of court, Apple could end up screwing themselves because a court orders them to stop forcing customers to purchase Apple hardware with OS X. And if that happens, I'm going to crack up laughing. And believe me, if the court rules the same way the 1984 court does, then Apple won't have a choice in the states but to comply.

[Steven P. Administrators]

Microsoft shutdown the AutoPatcher for almost the same reasons Psystar is being sued, with exception that psystar is actually modifying them

AutoPatcher never modified any Microsoft patches or updates, they simply didn't have permission to (re)distribute them. On speaking with Microsoft, they felt that customers would blindly trust this 3rd party method and if troubles came from it, it would look like it's Microsofts fault and not AutoPatcher.

Sometimes updates are released and then pulled within 48 hours due to critical errors in the patching process, something they can't control with 3rd party distributors.

Plus they never had a problem with AP until it started getting shipped with all sorts of popular PC magazines ;)

Edit: Misread your last part of the sentence. Oops!

[mad_onion]

I see Apple losing this case, I seriously do. Psytar isn't making money on OS X because they're paying for a license. Apple is only losing money on the hardware, and considering the 1984 ruling, Apple doesn't stand a chance. At most, Pystar will be forced to stop offering modified versions of OS X.

But if Psytar has no interest in settling out of court, Apple could end up screwing themselves because a court orders them to stop forcing customers to purchase Apple hardware with OS X. And if that happens, I'm going to crack up laughing. And believe me, if the court rules the same way the 1984 court does, then Apple won't have a choice in the states but to comply.

surely if the legal ground apple is on is that shakey then someone would have sued them long ago?

[Cara Veteran]

AutoPatcher never modified any Microsoft patches or updates, they simply didn't have permission to (re)distribute them. On speaking with Microsoft, they felt that customers would blindly trust this 3rd party method and if troubles came from it, it would look like it's Microsofts fault and not AutoPatcher.

Sometimes updates are released and then pulled within 48 hours due to critical errors in the patching process, something they can't control with 3rd party distributors.

Plus they never had a problem with AP until it started getting shipped with all sorts of popular PC magazines ;)

I don't think anyone, specially not me, thought AutoPatcher was modifying files. :)

I think this should be an interesting case, and I look forward to an Apple victory...but just incase I think I'll start polishing up my resume because if Apple loses and a clone war ensues Apple will not be able to keep their quality up and will simply become a (dieing) software vendor. Apple continues to operate based on the revenue from iPod, iPhone, and the Apple HARDWARE lineup...take out that and...

[giga Veteran]

AutoPatcher never modified any Microsoft patches or updates, they simply didn't have permission to (re)distribute them. On speaking with Microsoft, they felt that customers would blindly trust this 3rd party method and if troubles came from it, it would look like it's Microsofts fault and not AutoPatcher.

Sometimes updates are released and then pulled within 48 hours due to critical errors in the patching process, something they can't control with 3rd party distributors.

Plus they never had a problem with AP until it started getting shipped with all sorts of popular PC magazines ;)

Edit: Misread your last part of the sentence. Oops!

Apple could pull the same thing then on Psystar, couldn't they? Not only is Psystar redistributing them without permission, but they're modifying them to their heart's content. 10.5.3 was definitely not 1.6GB.

[Hurmoth]

surely if the legal ground apple is on is that shakey then someone would have sued them long ago?

You tell me: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...;friend=nytimes

That's the ruling that Psytar is hiding behind. I guess we'll see; what comes of this will be huge for Apple either way.

Apple could pull the same thing then on Psystar, couldn't they? Not only is Psystar redistributing them without permission, but they're modifying them to their heart's content. 10.5.3 was definitely not 1.6GB.

If you want to go that route then, isn't what OnyX does the same thing? It takes the original binaries that comes with OS X and modifies them (making them smaller by taking out the PPC or Intel stuff). Or am I wrong about the way it works?

[markwolfe Veteran]

I hope Apple lose, they shouldn't restrict people to have to purchase hardware as well as software. If people wanna run this on PCs then let them and start selling it properly, cash in!

Incorrect point of view.

I cannot (and should not) infringe Microsoft copyright by re-distributing their code (and modified versions of it!). That would be illegal.

What pystar seems to be doing is exactly just that.

As far as end users, then I would support the rights of an end user to disregard their own EULA, as long as they do not break laws by selling/redistributing that content.

So, I would agree with your point if it were end users, but not for anyone distributing (whether for free or for profit - it doesn't matter).

[giga Veteran]

You tell me: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...;friend=nytimes

That's the ruling that Psytar is hiding behind. I guess we'll see; what comes of this will be huge for Apple either way.

If you want to go that route then, isn't what OnyX does the same thing? It takes the original binaries that comes with OS X and modifies them (making them smaller by taking out the PPC or Intel stuff). Or am I wrong about the way it works?

I'm not sure where OnyX does that, but that software isn't distributed as Apple software. It's not redistributed with any macs as Apple intellectual property.

[ViperAFK]

I'm no apple fanboy (not even close) but I don't see why they can't restrict their os to their hardware. It's there OS, their hardware, if you don't like it don't buy a mac.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I think Apple will win here, as it seems pretty obvious you shouldn't be allowed to distribute modified code that originally belongs to someone else without their permission. However, I don't like Apple restricting OSX to Apple hardware. I'm well aware that Apple makes a lot of money from their hardware but they can still do that with OSX being open - the difference is that the competition will keep them motivated to innovate, instead of relaxing in the knowledge that people HAVE to buy their hardware to run OSX. All customers would be better off if Microsoft had some serious competition from Apple. I also strongly oppose Apple refusing to license FairPlay to allow DRM'ed files from iTMS to be played on non-Apple hardware.

It's rather sad that Apple is so image obsessed, particularly when it seems to compromise products - the iPhone (no changeable battery, previously no 3G, limited multimedia functionality, etc) and the iPod (no WMA support) are perfect examples. Apple runs its business by effectively forcing people to buy their products through tie-ins (iTMS, OSX requiring Mac hardware) rather than by simply making products that stand up on their own. It's disappointing because they have the potential to be a great company but just keep spitting it people's faces (the I'm a Mac adverts, etc).

[Dev Null Zen]

I'm no apple fanboy (not even close) but I don't see why they can't restrict their os to their hardware. It's there OS, their hardware, if you don't like it don't buy a mac.

Because they stepped away from their own hardware. The second they came out with OSX on Intel, it really put them in a bad way, since they restrict it to certain brands, not really to a type of hardware.

[giga Veteran]

Because they stepped away from their own hardware. The second they came out with OSX on Intel, it really put them in a bad way, since they restrict it to certain brands, not really to a type of hardware.

And? There's no monopoly as long as there are competing products out there. (Blackberry OS is limited to RIM devices--doesn't mean that they can't not limit it. Same with TouchFlo on HTC.)

[NienorGT]

It's been told on Neowin that no OS brand can force users to ONLY use their own Hardware legally.

So they can't sue Prystar just because they sell OSX on non-Mac system.

They can sue if OSX copies are illegal in anyway.

[mrt2]

The justification statements made by this 'Robert' person are completely moronic and goes against every major computer manufacturer for the most part. The whole what if MS said windows can't run on anything but Dell isn't exactly the same argument because Microsoft doesn't make their own hardware... on the other hand though Dell, HP, Compaq, Sun, and a host of other computer manufacturers sell computers and servers with software that work ONLY on their computers especially management consoles etc... It is impossible to install Dell Open Manage software on anything but Dells unless you do some hacking around. My point in all this is MOST if not ALL major computer manufacturers offer tools and software to their customers that are made to work ONLY with the hardware they provide. So why is it different because Apple does it?

[Hurmoth]

It's been told on Neowin that no OS brand can force users to ONLY use their own Hardware legally.

So they can't sue Prystar just because they sell OSX on non-Mac system.

They can sue if OSX copies are illegal in anyway.

They can sue; in the US you can sue for anything. I could sue you for starring at me through your computer. I felt violated, but that doesn't mean they'll win though.

[mrt2]

Exactly, This case is going to be a lot bigger than what first appears. Why, software modifcation is an untested ground for copyright infringment. Is it illeagle to take legally boughten software and modify it for your own use as that is essnetially what Pystar is banking on...remeber, they sell you a sealed box of OSX.

This could have effects on the EULA, is that allowed? Can you really tell someone who buys software that they cant do what they want with it? Sure you can cut off support but whose to say that you cant do what you want with it....Im really interested to see how this plays out, although it will be for many years

The difference here is OEM distributors and other companies that sell computers with windows on it not only pay for the OS/software, they ALSO pay MS to be a licensed reseller of Windows and Microsoft products... how much money IF ANY has Psystar offered Apple for the right to resell their OS?

[NienorGT]

*stares to Humroth*