PDA

View Full Version : An in-depth look at Psystar's legal defeat at the hands of ...


MacBytes
Nov 18, 2009, 07:09 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: An in-depth look at Psystar's legal defeat at the hands of Apple (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20091118200901)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

savoirfaire
Nov 19, 2009, 08:37 AM
Interesting read. I don't think there was really any question that Psystar didn't have a legal leg to stand on, but it's amusing to read about their flimsy attempts at rationalizing their business practices.

prechrchet
Nov 19, 2009, 02:26 PM
So is this the end for Psystar? Or does the war continue?

savoirfaire
Nov 19, 2009, 02:37 PM
So is this the end for Psystar? Or does the war continue?

According to an article in PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/182223/apple_deals_another_blow_to_psystar.html), the battle is over, but the war goes on.

Apple is still waiting a judgment on several accusations against Psystar including breach of contract, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition.
Psystar's antitrust suit against Apple linking its hardware and Snow Leopard is still on the table, but things aren't looking good for the Mac cloner.

prechrchet
Nov 19, 2009, 04:15 PM
If, and that's a really big IF, the portion of Apple's EULA that restricts the OS to Apple hardware, would that mean that Dell, HP, etc could simply start selling computers with Mac OS installed without permission from Apple? (and would Apple be able to profit from this in some way?)

If, and again, this is a really big IF, this were to happen, would this mean that Apple would be more likely to engage in licensing agreements with aforementioned manufacturers?

BaldiMac
Nov 19, 2009, 04:23 PM
If, and that's a really big IF, the portion of Apple's EULA that restricts the OS to Apple hardware, would that mean that Dell, HP, etc could simply start selling computers with Mac OS installed without permission from Apple? (and would Apple be able to profit from this in some way?)

If, and again, this is a really big IF, this were to happen, would this mean that Apple would be more likely to engage in licensing agreements with aforementioned manufacturers?

It would depend on why the provision was invalidated.

prechrchet
Nov 19, 2009, 04:58 PM
Lets say it was invalidated on the grounds that, while a company such as Apple has every right and reason to restrict the number of computers/devices you install their software on, they do not have the right to restrict the type and/or make up of the hardware their software is installed on.

For example, if I buy a CD from Sony music, Sony has the right to tell me that I cannot make copies of their music, they cannot tell me that I can only play it on a Sony CD player.

If the judge were to follow this line of reasoning, what impact would it likely have on Apple's ability to restrict hackintoshes and/or clones?

pdjudd
Nov 19, 2009, 10:35 PM
Lets say it was invalidated on the grounds that, while a company such as Apple has every right and reason to restrict the number of computers/devices you install their software on, they do not have the right to restrict the type and/or make up of the hardware their software is installed on.

For example, if I buy a CD from Sony music, Sony has the right to tell me that I cannot make copies of their music, they cannot tell me that I can only play it on a Sony CD player.

If the judge were to follow this line of reasoning, what impact would it likely have on Apple's ability to restrict hackintoshes and/or clones?

The problem is that the CD format is not owned by Sony - they cannot lock it down - second CD’s have no protection systems. The format is out there by other players. Overall, music is not a good analogue. Instead of CD’s - think the MiniDisk format - totally a Sony owned format Sony could lock that down and tie it to whatever content they wanted and it would be totally legal. Now that business model failed since Sony’s model is to maximize their music sales in whatever way they want. Sony’s music business is very different from their hardware business.

Sony cannot do what you propose with CD’s because the CD format system doesn’t allow for that. Computing platforms are different - Apple’s agreements with Intel can allow for DRM - it even works that way on Windows for DVD playback. Tying is perfectly allowable in any way as long as the two products are related and there is no monopoly. Thats the way the law works.

cmaier
Nov 19, 2009, 10:48 PM
Lets say it was invalidated on the grounds that, while a company such as Apple has every right and reason to restrict the number of computers/devices you install their software on, they do not have the right to restrict the type and/or make up of the hardware their software is installed on.

For example, if I buy a CD from Sony music, Sony has the right to tell me that I cannot make copies of their music, they cannot tell me that I can only play it on a Sony CD player.

If the judge were to follow this line of reasoning, what impact would it likely have on Apple's ability to restrict hackintoshes and/or clones?

A better example would be if a judge were to rule that when an author sells a book, it's illegal to restrict the words to the pages of the book, and the consumer must be allowed to use the words in a book of his choosing.

Ain't gonna happen absent an antitrust rationale, and that ain't gonna happen until Apple has a majority of the computer market.

BaldiMac
Nov 20, 2009, 07:38 AM
Lets say it was invalidated on the grounds that, while a company such as Apple has every right and reason to restrict the number of computers/devices you install their software on, they do not have the right to restrict the type and/or make up of the hardware their software is installed on.

For example, if I buy a CD from Sony music, Sony has the right to tell me that I cannot make copies of their music, they cannot tell me that I can only play it on a Sony CD player.

If the judge were to follow this line of reasoning, what impact would it likely have on Apple's ability to restrict hackintoshes and/or clones?

I would think the most likely outcome of such a hypothetical ruling would be that Apple would tweak their license to tie retail versions of OS X to a previous full installation of OS X rather than to Mac hardware. Full versions only being available on a new Mac and non-transferable, of course.

Joe The Dragon
Nov 20, 2009, 04:33 PM
A better example would be if a judge were to rule that when an author sells a book, it's illegal to restrict the words to the pages of the book, and the consumer must be allowed to use the words in a book of his choosing.

Ain't gonna happen absent an antitrust rationale, and that ain't gonna happen until Apple has a majority of the computer market.

what is if a book had a trap to block audio books / text to speech and some copied the book and removed that part.

OllyW
Nov 20, 2009, 04:38 PM
Ain't gonna happen absent an antitrust rationale, and that ain't gonna happen until Apple has a majority of the computer market.

And that ain't gonna happen. ;)

cmaier
Nov 20, 2009, 04:39 PM
what is if a book had a trap to block audio books / text to speech and some copied the book and removed that part.

Difficult to say. While there is a public policy argument to be made in favor of voiding license restrictions that prevent use by the disabled, if the book is already available in audio format (books on tape), fair use likely wouldn't apply. (Not that fair use is relevant to license restrictions - I point out that fair use wouldn't apply because I think if the same public policy rationales would be examined).