Apple Vs. Psystar ( Apple Won )

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

Copyright misuse. After Psystar's antitrust and monopoly arguments were thrown out, it tried to argue that Apple was misusing its copyright on OS X by limiting it to Apple hardware. It was an interesting and ballsy argument, and the court didn't buy it for a second: "Apple has not prohibited others from independently developing and using their own operating systems. Thus, Apple did not violate the public policy underlying copyright law or engage in copyright misuse." Put another way, as long as Apple doesn't try to prevent OS X owners from buying Windows PCs, it can sell OS X however it wants.

Source @ Engadget

[Subject Delta]

Until Apple successfully get a C&D order placed against psystar I wouldn't call this a win, and it certainly isn't a win for consumers who will still be forced to use Apple's overpriced hardware to run OSX. Soon though with applications like Rebel EFI, Psystar will just use a method of circumvention that doesn't actually require altering any of the OSX code, just a customised bootloader.

Apple may win the legal penis waving arguments, but they will never realistically stop hackintosh development.

[deletedxyz]

You broke Neowin!

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

agreed it will not stop the Hackentosh community, same goes for bittorent.

i dont agree with hackentosh's, but this will at least put the hackentosh into the hands of people that should know how to fix a problem, not selling it to grandma who calls and gets miffed at apple cause it dont work right and it filtering down the pool because people think its legit

[Growled Member]

In my mind there was never any doubt that Apple would win.

[Subject Delta]

thats your opinion. and the overpriced thing has been proved wrong alot of times so far.

my Macbook Pro C2D was LESS then a similarly equipped HP machine. and also their OS is tied to the Hardware, imho thats a good thing, less of " The system crash was a result of a faulty driver" crap. if OSX crash's its all on Apple, if Windows crash's how many million reasons could it be ( my Win 7 Box and Win Xp rarely crash if at all, but if it does it could be a driver for a piece of hardware that is in no way related to whatever crashed because some shoddy vendor didnt want to properly code a device driver, is it MS's fault, no.

I'd rather have an OS that runs on any computer I have, than be forced to change expensively to a new platform to use a different OS.

And lets look at the config of my own computer, assembled for about ?1,000, no mac in that price range could touch it in performance terms.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

so im guessing you sucessfuly got XP to run on a 486 ? or Vista on a P3 ?

my Laptop came with 10.4, it has 10.5 on it, and i can run 10.6 if i want. same hardware different OS.

and as far as the config of your own comp, its a self-built what did you expect. that comparison is just dumb

I'd rather have an OS that runs on any computer I have, than be forced to change expensively to a new platform to use a different OS.

And lets look at the config of my own computer, assembled for about ?1,000, no mac in that price range could touch it in performance terms.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Hell-In-A-Handbasket

[drshdw]

I'd rather have an OS that runs on any computer I have, than be forced to change expensively to a new platform to use a different OS.

And lets look at the config of my own computer, assembled for about ?1,000, no mac in that price range could touch it in performance terms.

Can't beat that 19" monitor at all..

[WatchTheSoup]

Can't beat that 19" monitor at all..

Translation: I know Apple hardware is overpriced so I won't win this argument so let's pick a fight over monitor size.

[speedstr3789]

so im guessing you sucessfuly got XP to run on a 486 ? or Vista on a P3 ?

my Laptop came with 10.4, it has 10.5 on it, and i can run 10.6 if i want. same hardware different OS.

My pc came with Windows 98 then upgraded to 98se, threw in a little bit of win2000 and then installed XP on it. Go figure....

and as far as the config of your own comp, its a self-built what did you expect. that comparison is just dumb

That comparison is exactly what people are talking about. Custom built or upgrading capabilities. You can't touch a pc in that category.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

Overpriced, OMG your right, and i didnt even add Office compared to iWork ( OpenOffice is Free )

no the comparison is aganst OEM Pre-Builts Vs Apple. not Self-Builts, a Self Built will cost less regardless. compared to anything any OEM can throw out. and yes an IBM Clone can have thousands of upgrade path's, compared to the Handful of Mac Upgrade Paths.

and my OS comment was aganst the comment made that Apple's cant run a new OS without upgrading.

My pc came with Windows 98 then upgraded to 98se, threw in a little bit of win2000 and then installed XP on it. Go figure....

That comparison is exactly what people are talking about. Custom built or upgrading capabilities. You can't touch a pc in that category.

[Dysphoria]

Overpriced, OMG your right, and i didnt even add Office compared to iWork ( OpenOffice is Free )

no the comparison is aganst OEM Pre-Builts Vs Apple. not Self-Builts, a Self Built will cost less regardless. compared to anything any OEM can throw out. and yes an IBM Clone can have thousands of upgrade path's, compared to the Handful of Mac Upgrade Paths.

and my OS comment was aganst the comment made that Apple's cant run a new OS without upgrading.

+^1

Yeah, base model Laptops are comparable price wise. People tend to think otherwise, but most of the time dont even know what they are getting when they purchase a laptop.... They usually just look at the price, and that's the reason that MS has been running those Laptop hunter adds

[carmatic]

That comparison is exactly what people are talking about. Custom built or upgrading capabilities. You can't touch a pc in that category.

so why not have the best of both worlds? the experience of OSX, and the savings and flexibility you get from building your own computer!

[Subject Delta]

Can't beat that 19" monitor at all..

Size isn't everything you know :laugh: I am happy with the monitor I have, due to the fact I have limited space something stupidly large would actually be impractical. Hell it's widescreen, the picture quality is excellent, it is HDCP compliant, and I can playback HD video at 720p. I really don't need anything better. Oh and I didn't mention the best part, I didn't pay for it I got it free from a family member.

My computer is probably worth maybe ?800 or so now, considering the hardware that I have in it, and the quality of my liquid cooling setup. I challenge you to find anything in the Apple lineup close to that price that even comes close to matching the raw speed of my PC.

[Trong]

Just so it's clear for everyone else, the case was more about the illegal copies that Pystar were using to install OS X onto their hackintoshes. They were making copies of OS X modified with Rebel EFI preloaded and selling those for or with the installation. It was merely a case about copyright infringement.

It does not mean anything for the hackintosh community.

[Subject Delta]

If Psystar really where using illegal copies then they are patently stupid, and deserve to be slapped down for it.

[the evn show]

Until Apple successfully get a C&D order placed against psystar I wouldn't call this a win

C&D is short hand for "Cease and Desist" which is (more-or-less) a request on fancy letter head to knock-it off. We've moved past that stage and on to court. Once we got there both sides said "These are the facts" and agreed to them. Then both side said "These are the legal reasons the other side is wrong". And finally both side said "okay judge, we agree on all that, we don't need a full trial because there's nothing up to debate. Give us a ruling" - that's called summary judgement.

The ruling is coming in two parts. The first part was all on Psystar's defence, the court has rejected all of them. This is somewhat mixed because Psystar's position was sort of ridiculous and didn't address the claims made by garden variety basement fake-mac tinkerers.

The stuff that remains are Apple's claims of unfair competition and the like. The major issues for the Mac OS X on a Dell crowd were copyright issues and those have pretty much entirely been laid to rest (so far as Psystar made them: they didn't argue the stuff I thought was most interesting).

and it certainly isn't a win for consumers who will still be forced to use Apple's overpriced hardware to run OSX.

Worse than that, Psystar has largely squandered a chance to make a 'real' defence and we now have a precedent that will make it more difficult for future companies to challenge Apple.

Soon though with applications like Rebel EFI, Psystar will just use a method of circumvention that doesn't actually require altering any of the OSX code, just a customised bootloader.

Unfortunately it'll still be illegal.

The problem isn't that it can't be done, it's that it's not legal - and that will keep this sort of thing out of the mainstream.

Apple may win the legal penis waving arguments, but they will never realistically stop hackintosh development.

They don't need too, and they certainly aren't under any unrealistic delusions. Apple's goal are probably closer to the mid-20th century America's treatment of communism. They want to keep hacked up macs (and iphones, whatever) squarely in the realms of ?ber dorks and basement nerds just how the US Government wanted to keep government criticism squarely in the realm of communists.

So long as it isn't viable for 'normal people' to use a mac, apple's accomplished it's goals. Stopping everyone is an expensive no-win game, stopping most people is reasonably cheap and relatively easy.

[cabron]

Psystar just got what's coming to them in the California case. Here's the order [PDF]. It's a total massacre. Psystar's first-sale defense went down in flames. Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal.

Psystar's motion for summary judgment on trademark infringement and trade dress is denied. So is its illusory motion for copyright misuse.

There are still issues remaining for trial, despite Psystar's attempt to present everything now as being moot. Here's what's left to be decided at trial: Apple's allegations of breach of contract; induced breach of contract, trademark infringement; trademark dilution; trade dress infringement; and state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code ? 17200; and common law unfair competition. See anything on that list that will be helpful to Psystar?

So that means damages ahead for Psystar on the copyright issues just decided on summary judgment, at a minimum. The court asked for briefs on that subject. In short, Psystar is toast. Psystar's only hope now is Florida, and frankly I wouldn't bet the house on that one. Judges notice if you were just found guilty of a similar cause of action in another state.

You're surprised? I told you, I told you, I told you. So, to those who feel crushed at the moment, there could be an appeal, I suppose. And if you want freedom for your code, you certainly can find it on Planet Earth. Look in the right direction. You'll be happy you did, because you can hack away to your heart's content, and it's perfectly legal. The court's message is clear: EULAs mean what they say; if you don't want to abide by its license, leave Apple's stuff alone.

We have the order for you as text.

On the first sale defense, you'll find it in the section on distribution right and Section 109:

Apple contends that Psystar has violated its distribution right by offering and selling Mac OS X on Psystar computers to the public. Psystar admits that it has distributed Mac OS X (Chung Exh. 17 at 4).

But Psystar responds that its conduct is protected by the Section 109 first-sale doctrine. Section 109 provides that "the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord." 17 U.S.C. 109. This provision is a limitation on the distribution right. It applies only to an owner of a copy.

The parties spill much ink on whether Psystar was the owner or a licensee of the copy (i.e., the tangible copy) of Mac OS X that it purchased. Even assuming arguendo that Psystar was the owner of a copy, the first-sale defense fails here. Section 109 provides immunity only when copies are "lawfully made." 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. See Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club, Inc., 129 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1006 (S.D. Tex. 2000) ("the first-sale doctrine does not apply to an admittedly counterfeit unit"); see also 2-8 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT ? 8.12 ("if the manufacture of a copy or phonorecord constitutes an infringement of the reproduction or adaptation right, its distribution will infringe the distribution right, even if this is done by the owner of such copy or phonorecord").

Catch that? Even if Psystar were the lawful owner of the copy, it still can't do what it did. The court quotes from Microsoft Corp. v. Software Wholesale Club, Inc.: "the first-sale doctrine does not apply to an admittedly counterfeit unit". So, no, you can't buy a copy and use it to go into a counterfeiting business, in effect. Terekhov's theory has bitten the dust and then had to eat some. Just like Daniel Wallace's anti-GPL theory did. Whoever is relying on their legal theories might want to buy a vowel and try to figure this puzzle out.

I know. They'll say, but, but, but ... what if they hadn't used the master and just used each copy, then would it work? Sons, why do you think Psystar used the master copy? Because it's a business, and in a business, efficiency is money. That's why businesses set themselves up, to make money. The whole world is not with you on a holy war to destroy EULAs and the GPL. Even this rinkydink business wanted to make money. Theoreticals belong on message boards, not in business and definitely not in courtrooms, and even on message boards, everyone told you for years that this wouldn't work out if someone tried it. It's been tried. It didn't work out.

And to those who argue that all that matters is that open source is a better way to develop code, let this case be a warning message. Apple makes fabulous code. Of course, the BSD community did a lot of it for them, but Apple makes it all just work for end users, and they do that beautifully. So no one can argue that for end users it is not fabulous code. It is.

So here is my question: is that enough?

Or isn't the message of this case that what you really want with your fabulous code is freedom for the code? If you answer yes, I want freedom to do what I want with code on my home computer, then why use proprietary code? Proprietary vendors are happy to sell you the best code in the world, if they have it. But they won't sell you freedom to use it any way you want. That's not the business they are in.

So, if freedom matters to you, don't sell out the goal of a completely free operating system, without any proprietary blobs at all. There is a purpose to that goal, because proprietary blobs mean restrictions on use. That is a given. There are other negatives, but that one is the one this case highlights. So work for drivers that are not proprietary. Stay away from code that you believe has potential patent infringement claims. Why? Because a short-term seeming advantage can block the end result you want. It will provide a Brand X solution that takes you on a detour away from your goal.

So when folks tell you that all that matters is that the code be open source or that end users should have the right to put proprietary code together with free and open source code if they want to, or that partnering with Microsoft will work out well, or that what matters is that end users use more free software by using proprietary-free mixtures, ask yourself, is that really true? No matter who says it, is it true? Look at the Apple v. Psystar case. Freedom matters. Some things are just obvious.

Use what you want, but think it through more deeply than just thinking about what you want this minute or what's more convenient. Why do you think Stallman started trying to create Free Software? Because he knew how to fix a printer but the license wouldn't let him. He already saw what you are seeing with this Psystar case. Proprietary means restrictions on use. It does.

Groklaw

[John S. Veteran]

[Threads Merged]

[thealexweb]

I guess Apple will have to be defeated in the marketplace then rather than the courtroom.

[cabron]

Psystar needs to disappear, they are illegally building computers with OS X without the permission of Apple. Even if they sell computers with windows, they need to have an agreement with Microsoft to do it and in this case, Apple and Psystar does not have anything, so it is considered totally illegal and against Apple's business model.

[drshdw]

Size isn't everything you know :laugh: I am happy with the monitor I have, due to the fact I have limited space something stupidly large would actually be impractical. Hell it's widescreen, the picture quality is excellent, it is HDCP compliant, and I can playback HD video at 720p. I really don't need anything better. Oh and I didn't mention the best part, I didn't pay for it I got it free from a family member.

My computer is probably worth maybe ?800 or so now, considering the hardware that I have in it, and the quality of my liquid cooling setup. I challenge you to find anything in the Apple lineup close to that price that even comes close to matching the raw speed of my PC.

Right..Also I doubt your computer is worth ?800 now, probably a lot less, like ?500 if even. I guess buy the $2000 Core i5 iMac, claim the $1600 27" monitor is free..and sure the other parts are only worth about $400.. yeah?

Also you should probably get a better PSU before it blows your computer up!

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

i challenge you to do the same with a IBM Clone when you built it

My computer is probably worth maybe ?800 or so now, considering the hardware that I have in it, and the quality of my liquid cooling setup. I challenge you to find anything in the Apple lineup close to that price that even comes close to matching the raw speed of my PC.

[Dance.]

Frank, quit it. People who buy MacBooks pay a premium for the brand, everyone knows that. It's not a competition as to who has the better computer, they've earned their money, they can spend it as they want.

[Subject Delta]

Unfortunately it'll still be illegal.

Why is it still illegal, there is no law that says you cannot use a customised bootloader to load an OS, if none of Apple's own code is modified there isn't a lot that can legally be done about it.

Psystar needs to disappear, they are illegally building computers with OS X without the permission of Apple. Even if they sell computers with windows, they need to have an agreement with Microsoft to do it and in this case, Apple and Psystar does not have anything, so it is considered totally illegal and against Apple's business model.

Who cares about Apple's business model. If you actually think it is in the best interests of a consumer to pay a significant amount more money and not get a significant amount more performance (and no, sorry, a pretty case doesn't count), you truly have sold your soul to the church of jobs.

Right..Also I doubt your computer is worth ?800 now, probably a lot less, like ?500 if even. I guess buy the $2000 Core i5 iMac, claim the $1600 27" monitor is free..and sure the other parts are only worth about $400.. yeah?

Also you should probably get a better PSU before it blows your computer up!

Strange, my PSU has always stood me in fine stead, in fact pulling a stable 1GHZ overclock on 570W tells me that it must actually be a pretty decent PSU, I don't know where you get the idea from, but you evidently seem grossly misinformed about power requirements, and having less wattage doesn't blow a computer up for starters anyway, it would just make some components underperform, a problem I do not suffer. I have done hours upon hours of stress testing with Prime 95, and 3D benchmarks, and I can assure you my computer is perfectly stable and at no risk of blowing up, so rather than me getting a new PSU, I think you need to go shopping... For some actual facts about computer hardware.

Frank, quit it. People who buy MacBooks pay a premium for the brand, everyone knows that. It's not a competition as to who has the better computer, they've earned their money, they can spend it as they want.

Quit what? presenting an opposing opinion? nope I don't think I'm gonna do that soon. If you can't hack criticism, head off to a website like AppleInsider, where Apple will almost receive universal praise. If people are stupid enough to waste money, that is their loss, not mine, but the freedom to point that fact out is something I will retain and that no amount of moaning from you will overtur:):)