Appeals Court Sides with Apple in Dispute over Psystar's Unauthorized Mac Clones

[KnightWRX]

Buy a retail copy of Windows. Install it on a computer. Sell that computer.

You're talking about First-sale doctrine. It doesn't apply to Psystar for 2 reasons :

- Their copies were not lawfully obtained. They failed to provide the proper paperwork to prove they had even paid Apple for the copies they installed/sold.
- Their copies were not lawfully made. All the installations were done from a single imaging server, not from the individual licenses claimed to have been purchased.

As such, they had no rights to claim First-sale doctrine. Even if they did, they would have been in breach of the DMCA for circumventing the copy protection measures in place. Even if that was ruled fair use, they would have been in breach of the EULA, something they must accept to even complete the install.

So seriously, there was 0 legitimacy to their methods. To try to make analogies with Windows at this juncture is an act in futility. The conditions are not the same at all. Microsoft authorizes 3rd party OEMs, Apple does not.

 

[BaldiMac]

What an incredible fuss about a company that's long out of business. Just another platform for the Apple defenders. (See how I carefully avoid the term 'fanboy'? ).

(See how you carefully used different words to say the same thing? )

When business picked-up again, Apple turned on its heels and decided 'clones' were a bad idea, some kind of threat to their business model. (OS 9/X running on cheap hardware and running well).

Way to try and rewrite history.

 

[Trudy]

Again. Psystar modified OS X in order to install it on a non-Mac. They created a derivative work. 17 USC 117 does not limit Apple's exclusive right with respect to derivative works. SLA or no SLA, what gives Psystar the right to create a derivative work, reproduce it, and distribute it?

Only as necessary for interoperability, Fair Use. It's not substantially changed in any way that a user of the work would ever notice looking at the OS itself. I know, I know, courts almost don't recognize Fair Use anymore. As corporations wish, so the Congress will make the laws, and so will courts rule.

Of course, installing Windows, installing a program (which modifies Windows) and reselling -- copyright infringement or not?

Windows was written to work on non-Macs. OS X was not. Windows does not require unauthorized modification to work on a random PC. OS X does. Just because you wish Apple wrote OS X to work on non-Macs, does not mean that you have a legal right to modify it to work that way.

Buy a book, tear out a page of the table of contents, resell it. Copyright infringement as a derivative work or not? Or First Sale protected?

BTW, I should clarify, I hate PsyStar. I thought it was a shady operation from the beginning, and I never would have bought a system or suggested anyone buy their systems. I wouldn't even buy an authorized clone because I like the combination of Apple's hardware and software. I'm going on principle alone of the rights of people against the efforts of corporations to control us via the unconstitutional expansion of copyright.

 

[MacDav]

Waste of Time

So you can build your own Hackintosh "mac mini" for $600...Oh wait you can
buy a real "mac mini" from Apple for $600 and save several days of work.
What a waste of time.

http://lifehacker.com/5841604/the-always-up+to+date-guide-to-building-a-hackintosh - from 9/19/2011

http://lifehacker.com/5672051/how-to-build-a-hackintosh-mac-and-install-os-x-in-eight-easy-steps - from 2010

http://lifehacker.com/5360150/install-snow-leopard-on-your-hackintosh-pc-no-hacking-required - from 2009

Which, if you're comfortable plugging components in, is pretty viable.[/QUOTE]

 

[KnightWRX]

Only as necessary for interoperability, Fair Use.

Fair use cannot be claimed in scenarios where you will profit from distribution of the derivative work. Remember, Psystar were not end-users, they were resellers.

Also, again, First-sale doctrine doesn't apply because they had not lawfully obtained and made the copies, they had done so in breach of the right of the copyright holder.

----------

BTW, I should clarify, I hate PsyStar.

Then why are you spending so much energy trying to rehash arguments that have been thrown out by 2 courts now ?

 

[BaldiMac]

Only as necessary for interoperability, Fair Use. It's not substantially changed in any way that a user of the work would ever notice looking at the OS itself. I know, I know, courts almost don't recognize Fair Use anymore. As corporations wish, so the Congress will make the laws, and so will courts rule.

The old fall back. When legal reality conflicts with your interpretation of the laws, just claim conspiracy.

 

[Trudy]

- Their copies were not lawfully obtained. They failed to provide the proper paperwork to prove they had even paid Apple for the copies they installed/sold.

Some copies. Accounting error. How would you feel about a company that had perfect records of 100% purchases doing this?

- Their copies were not lawfully made. All the installations were done from a single imaging server, not from the individual licenses claimed to have been purchased.

Commonly accepted industry expedient, Fair Use as long as all copies are legally purchased. But again, how would you feel if they installed every copy individually?

Even if they did, they would have been in breach of the DMCA for circumventing the copy protection measures in place.

Interoperability exception, plus misuse of the DMCA. Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components, a copy protection measure protecting token code used just to invoke product lock-in and not necessarily protect a true copyrighted work does not invoke DMCA protections against circumvention. The OS X install DVD (containing the actual copyrighted work) can be copied without circumventing anything.

Even if that was ruled fair use, they would have been in breach of the EULA, something they must accept to even complete the install.

Those portions of which would be considered unenforceable by any sane court that cared about the whole of copyright.

Microsoft authorizes 3rd party OEMs, Apple does not.

That's a whole other ball of wax, Windows provided at lower cost, in volume with perks. And even then, it has turned out that Microsoft can't necessarily enforce all of the provisions of the OEM license.

 

[jsjackso]

Are you new to the whole Mac thing? I don't remember the Mac 128k, 512k, etc. being particularly user serviceable or upgradeable. They were closed system from the word go.

True, the older Macs were not particularly upgradeable, but later series were. The Mac II series was very upgradeable. I had a IIci and if I'd wanted to I could've very easily replaced the cache card, hard drive, added new NuBus cards, or added a new CPU via the PDS slot. Successive series had plenty of models that were upgradeable and that were not forced to choose from a very limited range of components from Apple themselves. I'm not sure when that started heading back in the opposite direction.

 

[cmwade77]

Ok, so here's the question:
If I legally buy an engine that is originally intended for a Honda and they put it into a Ford, can Honda come and say that I violated their terms? The answer is not in the U.S.

Now obviously if the Ford was under warranty, they don't have to honor it and Honda could have a case to not have to honor their warranty on the engine.

I honestly see no difference here. If I buy a legal copy of an OS, I should be able to install it onto whatever machine it will work on. Again, warranties may be voided in the process, but short of that, there should be no other repercussions.

 

[cmaier]

Ok, so here's the question:
If I legally buy an engine that is originally intended for a Honda and they put it into a Ford, can Honda come and say that I violated their terms? The answer is not in the U.S.

Now obviously if the Ford was under warranty, they don't have to honor it and Honda could have a case to not have to honor their warranty on the engine.

I honestly see no difference here. If I buy a legal copy of an OS, I should be able to install it onto whatever machine it will work on. Again, warranties may be voided in the process, but short of that, there should be no other repercussions.

The difference is an engine is not subject to copyright protection. But, for example, if I patented the engine, I may very well be able to impose limits on what you do with it after you buy it (though the exhaustion doctrine may be a limitation on what limits I can impose).

 

[KnightWRX]

Some copies. Accounting error. How would you feel about a company that had perfect records of 100% purchases doing this?

Read the stories again. It wasn't some, it was basically all or near all of them. They had no paperwork at all to show.

You're rewriting history in the process of trying to make excuses for Psystar.

Commonly accepted industry expedient, Fair Use as long as all copies are legally purchased. But again, how would you feel if they installed every copy individually?

I feel you're making this into a case it wasn't. Obviously, hand installing the OS would have still had DMCA and EULA issues as I've pointed out. And again, it can't be Fair Use as Psystar is a reseller organisation, not an end user.

You know what I feel ? I feel they should have written their own OS instead of trying to profit of the work of others.

----------

Ok, so here's the question:
If I legally buy an engine that is originally intended for a Honda and they put it into a Ford, can Honda come and say that I violated their terms? The answer is not in the U.S.

You're talking actual property vs intellectual property. For example : if you legally buy a CD with OS X from Apple, you can use that CD as a frisbee or as a coaster for your beer or as a funky light show in your microwave. None of those uses of the material good you bought violate any licenses nor can any licenses prevent you from doing this.

EULA's are about the software found on the media, not the physical media itself.

 

[Judas1]

Apple got their money for each copy, end of story as far as I'm concerned.



Remember what a license legally is: It is permission to do something you normally wouldn't be able to do. What can't you do? Well, that's spelled out in copyright law. You CAN do anything else. The authors should have no more power than is granted in copyright law, and shouldn't be able to seize power outside of copyright with a license.

Think if you bought some land, but with it came an easement that says people can drive through a road to get to the property behind at a maximum speed of 45 mph. That is a restriction on your exclusive use of the land. You cannot put a sign at the entrance saying "By entering this property you agree to this license that states you can only go 10 mph on this road." Sorry, you don't have the power to demand that.

When you use copyright to protect your works, you accede to the "easements" of Fair Use and First Sale, as well as any other allowances under statutory or common law. Licenses are an effort to screw us out of our rights by revoking those easements. I can't see how any consumer would support them.

This makes perfect sense to me. If you own a license, you own the right to use that copyrighted material under that license. And you can do whatever you want with it as long as its not restricted by copyright laws. I never did understand how Apple can restrict MacOS to only Mac-branded computers. You should be able to use software on any hardware you want. You already paid Apple for the software, you just don't want to use their hardware. Its like buying a book published by Starbucks (I know Starbucks isn't a publisher) and Starbucks tells you you can only read their books if you are in their store sipping on their latte. Thats how absurd it is that Apple can tell you on what machine you can use a software.

The copyright holder can can modify the license to certain conditions for its use. Obviously only to Mac computers. Putting Mac OSX on non-mac computer would take away additional revenue that they would receive for the purchase of a Apple computer.

Copyright laws are there to protect the IP rights of companies by clearly defining their rights and limitations. They are not there to protect the pockets of corporations by allowing them abuse their rights and infringe on your rights.

 

[cmaier]

This makes perfect sense to me. If you own a license, you own the right to use that copyrighted material under that license. And you can do whatever you want with it as long as its not restricted by copyright laws. I never did understand how Apple can restrict MacOS to only Mac-branded computers. You should be able to use software on any hardware you want. You already paid Apple for the software, you just don't want to use their hardware. Its like buying a book published by Starbucks (I know Starbucks isn't a publisher) and Starbucks tells you you can only read their books if you are in their store sipping on their latte. Thats how absurd it is that Apple can tell you on what machine you can use a software.

Wrong. It's like buying a cup of coffee at starbucks, and thinking that since you bought a "license" to the cup of coffee you are entitled to everything else in the store.

A license can, and is always, limited. These limitations are the difference between being an owner and being a licensee. When you buy a ticket to a movie theater, you get a license to walk in and see the movie, not to do anything you want in the theater and stay as long as you'd like. And when Apple licenses you their software, they aren't granting you free reign to do what you want - they are giving you permission to do specific things that are clearly listed in the license agreement.

 

[mjtomlin]

I never did understand how Apple can restrict MacOS to only Mac-branded computers. You should be able to use software on any hardware you want. You already paid Apple for the software, you just don't want to use their hardware.

This is where most people get confused. Apple doesn't sell a separate OS. They sell a fully integrated product, their Macintosh line of computers. The computer and the operating system make up one single product, not two separate products. There are many examples of this on the market; Playstation, XBox, Blackberry, Palm, iPad, etc... These are all devices that run their own OS and that OS only runs on those devices, computers aren't any different. The only difference is user attitude; people are used to Microsoft's business model of providing and selling the OS and letting people install it on any compatible computer. People forget there was a time when there were many computers on the market that ran their own OS; Tandy, Amiga, Atari... Apple is the last of these companies.

Also Apple makes Mac OS UPGRADES available to people who already own Macintosh computers. The only reason there is a retail box of Mac OS X is because it was far more convenient for most Mac users to make a quick trip to the store and buy the DVD, than to download an entire OS.

...Thats how absurd it is that Apple can tell you on what machine you can use a software.

It's not absurd for Apple to tell you how they want their product used. Most products come with disclaimers and a warranty telling you how the product should be used. If you fail to use the product in accordance to these, then the company absolves themselves from liability and the warranty is voided.

Second, Apple doesn't care if YOU want to install OS X on non-Macintosh hardware. (There is a thriving hackintosh community.) However Apple will not support the OS running on that hardware after you violate the EULA.

Copyright laws are there to protect the IP rights of companies by clearly defining their rights and limitations. They are not there to protect the pockets of corporations by allowing them abuse their rights and infringe on your rights.

How exactly is Apple abusing its rights as a corporation?
And how exactly are they infringing on your rights as a consumer?

Sorry, but you do not have a right to buy and own Mac OS X. Apple only makes their product available to you by agreeing to their fair terms of use (EULA). It would be different if Apple was the only company that developed a computer operating system, but that's the case here. You have many other alternatives to choose from to support your hardware, whatever that may be.

 

[Kaibelf]

Who cares where the money came from?
Should the rich be the only one who should win a court case?

Should the rich be the only ones who obey the law?

 

[stangaroo]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

Cost about one third of the value of an equivalent mac pro at the time (which didn't have the blu ray option) I can't put 10.6 or higher on it so it's days are numbered

It is a great work horse for overnight video converting though.

 

[likemyorbs]

Ok, so here's the question:
If I legally buy an engine that is originally intended for a Honda and they put it into a Ford, can Honda come and say that I violated their terms? The answer is not in the U.S.

Now obviously if the Ford was under warranty, they don't have to honor it and Honda could have a case to not have to honor their warranty on the engine.

I honestly see no difference here. If I buy a legal copy of an OS, I should be able to install it onto whatever machine it will work on. Again, warranties may be voided in the process, but short of that, there should be no other repercussions.

Bad comparison. It's more like Ford making a replica of a Honda and selling it as their own and violating the intellectual property of Honda. If i build my own hackintosh, apple can't really go after me, the same as if you put a honda engine into a ford. But if i profit on apple's intellectual property, they can sue me like they did psystar.

 

[gnasher729]

This makes perfect sense to me. If you own a license, you own the right to use that copyrighted material under that license. And you can do whatever you want with it as long as its not restricted by copyright laws. I never did understand how Apple can restrict MacOS to only Mac-branded computers.

Copyright law is all about copying. The copyright holder has the right to decide which copies of their copyrighted work can be made. That is what Apple does: It says that you may make one copy of MacOS X to install it on an Apple branded computer. With Lion for example, you may make enough copies to install it on every Apple branded computer owned and controlled by you, plus two copies for each of those computers to run in a VM. You may copy the software to run it on an Apple branded computer. You are not allowed to make the copy needed to install it on a non-Apple computer.

What Apple couldn't legally do would be for example to restrict its computers to run only Apple software. Apple cannot tell you that you can't install Windows on a Mac, because installing Windows means copying software where Microsoft holds the copyright, and Apple has no right to tell you how you can or cannot copy Microsoft software.

I hope that makes it clear: If what you want to do involves copying Apple's software, then Apple can tell you whether or not you can do it. If what you want to do doesn't involve copying Apple's software, then copyright law doesn't give Apple any rights about that.

You're talking about First-sale doctrine. It doesn't apply to Psystar for 2 reasons :

There is a simpler reason. First Sale doctrine applies only to the software as you bought it (for example a box containing a MacOS X DVD), not to a copy installed on a computer. Even if you installed MacOS X totally legal on a Macintosh computer to upgrade it, First Sale doctrine doesn't give you the right to sell the Macintosh with that upgrade (but Apple was nice enough to add the permission to do that in their license).

 

[mjtomlin]

Ok, so here's the question:
If I legally buy an engine that is originally intended for a Honda and they put it into a Ford, can Honda come and say that I violated their terms? The answer is not in the U.S.

Now obviously if the Ford was under warranty, they don't have to honor it and Honda could have a case to not have to honor their warranty on the engine.

I honestly see no difference here. If I buy a legal copy of an OS, I should be able to install it onto whatever machine it will work on. Again, warranties may be voided in the process, but short of that, there should be no other repercussions.

You're absolutely correct... and that's all that's at stake here, the warranty. It is not illegal for you as an individual to install OS X on non-Mac hardware. it will just violate the EULA and void the warranty.

What is illegal, is taking OS X, modifying it, and then reselling it as OS X.

Also, don't you think Honda or Ford would have a problem if you opened a car dealership selling Fords with Honda engines in them? I'm pretty sure you'd be dragged into court.

 

[gnasher729]

Buy a retail copy of Windows. Install it on a computer. Sell that computer.

Do you see a problem with this idea? Apple does, when it's their own operating system. The only difference is in the licensing terms, which attempt to create rights beyond what are granted to Apple by copyright.

Sadly, the courts agree with this creation of extra rights out of thin air.

I'd say you are rather obtuse. That's what copyright law does: It gives the copyright holder the right to control which copies may be made of their software and which copies may not be made. And that is exactly what Apple does. The licensing terms, at least Apple's, do _not_ create rights beyond those that Apple has as the copyright holder. Apple has the right to tell you that you cannot make a copy to install it on a non-Apple computer.

Terms in a license that say "you may not own a non-Apple computer" would be beyond those granted by copyright law, because you can clearly own a non-Apple computer without copying Apple's software, and therefore Apple can't restrict you that way. "You can't install MacOS X on a non-Apple computer" is perfectly within Apple's rights granted by copyright law.

What an incredible fuss about a company that's long out of business. Just another platform for the Apple defenders. (See how I carefully avoid the term 'fanboy'? ).

Actually, what Psystar tried to achieve (making it legal to ignore a license agreement) was a brutal attack against about any software maker including Open Source software. I can buy a very cheap family license that allows me to install Microsoft Office on I think three Windows PCs at home. If Psystar had been right, any company using Microsoft Office could have switched to family licenses.

You're absolutely correct... and that's all that's at stake here, the warranty. It is not illegal for you as an individual to install OS X on non-Mac hardware. it will just violate the EULA and void the warranty.

It is actually copyright infringement, and to make it work you need to add a DMCA violation, which is legally a lot worse. It's just that Apple doesn't bother trying to take any individuals to court for that.

 

[twilson]

But IMO, none of these "anti competitive" arguments would hold any water unless you got courts to agree first that there was no real basis for claiming the retail purchased OS X discs were in fact simply "upgrade editions, not for use for a new, full OS X installation".

For the anti-competitive angle to work, wouldn't they need convince a judge that Apple has a dominant, controlling position in the "Personal Computer" Market (the Mac is a product in that market, not a market in it's own right)?

 

[AppleScruff1]

Good news. I dont have a problem with people making hackintoshes themselves but a company shouldn't be selling clones for profit

Exactly.

 

[twilson]

Installing should not create an unauthorized copy, since it is a legal restriction on the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Requiring it be installed on a Mac is purely over-reaching. I bought it, I can do what I want as long as I don't make copies that don't fall under the exemption.

Installing doesn't create an unauthorised copy of OS X (unless the installation takes place on non-Apple branded hardware.)

Can you not see that? Jeeezus!

 

[twilson]

Interoperability exception, plus misuse of the DMCA. Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components, a copy protection measure protecting token code used just to invoke product lock-in and not necessarily protect a true copyrighted work does not invoke DMCA protections against circumvention. The OS X install DVD (containing the actual copyrighted work) can be copied without circumventing anything.

Okay, so given that a Mac = Printer and OS = Ink, how is this relevant?

I can install any ink (OS) I like in my Apple computer (printer).

Your argument only holds any weight if OS X were to take the place of the printer, which it clearly can't, as it is the part being installed.

The printers had the copy protection measures in them. Macs do not! The software has the copy protection measures, which have to pass when the software is run.

 

[RobertMartens]

I remember those. I got called a fanboy quite often in those threads ...

Actually at this site you get called a fanboy for just about anything you say.