Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[inkswamp]

Per Apples license you cannot install OS X on a non-Apple computer. Whether you sell it or keep it for your own personal use it's still illegal.

Well, I don't want to head off into a side debate over a hypothetical situation, but I believe Psystar's deal was that the user pays for the retail box of OS X separate from the computer, and pays additionally to have Psystar install it. The buyer is paying for the OS and asking Psystar to install.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Psystar isn't technically selling the machine with OS X pre-installed so I'm not sure how the whole issue of re-selling software comes into it. Once it's out of the box, it's owned by the customer, not Psystar, and the former has given the latter the right to install it on the hardware. That's not Psystar selling it after it's been installed.

 

[Angsty]

Well, after reading 18 pages on this thread, I am ready to post my 5c worth...

I guess I see this as a case of Supply and Demand.

There is customer demand for a headless mac/upgradable Mini/mid-range tower, but there is no corresponding supply being offered by the supplier. Competitors step in to take advantage of this niche and opportunity in the market by offering a product to satisfy the un-met demand.

Ergo - the laws of supply and Demand driving towards efficient markets. At least that is what I recall from my Economics lectures at uni all those years ago...

Yes, there is a bunch of "legal stuff" that needs to be added to this equation, but I get annoyed when the legal stuff is used to stifle competition in this manner.

(Insert my simplistic comments here about buying a Holden car and not being allowed to drive it on Ford roads...)

Sincerely wishing that Psyster succeeds and that Apple get their head out of their "look at me and how wonderful and pretty and WOW I am" cloud and started listening to their users.

 

[inkswamp]

Yes I see Apple is saying the boxed version is an updater, but any where on the box state this? Before opening the box does it say this is only a upgrade and not a full version?

Nope. I looked earlier myself and nowhere on the Tiger or Leopard retail boxes does it say it's an upgrade.

Apple is off their @#$%&* nut with this line of thinking. If Leopard is an upgrade, that means it requires the user to own and have installed an earlier version of OS X for the install to work. That is simply not true. I've installed OS X on machines that have been wiped out completely and have never been prompted to install a previous version of OS X first. I do however, have to have a previous version of 10.5 to install 10.5.4. That's an upgrade.

This is a really flimsy position for Apple to take.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Finally, lets hope they can bury Psystar 6 feet down. I guess Apple take quite a time to respond is cause they are doing research to see if they can win the case or not.

Don't include everyone in your "lets" business there. I'm rooting for Psystar. Apple is very greedy and it's time someone sent them a message that they can't monopolize the hardware market for a publicly available (I can buy it at Best Buy retail for $129) operating system. More importantly, if they won't fill the market for a reasonably priced mid-range tower or even a cheap-market one like the PC World has, then someone else should do it for them. Apple is guilty of illegal tying of their OS to their hardware. I hope Psystar files a counter suit immediately. If they can hang on, they will win because a legal precedent was already set for illegal tying of software to hardware and Apple has done that in spades by marketing what is essentially a fancy shell around a plain Jane Intel box using mass market parts.

Oh, and I don't care if you disagree. It's called an opinion and I clearly don't share yours.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Correction... YOU want a mid ranged tower. I have no interest whatsoever in a midrange tower.

Why should I care what YOU want? I mean who are you supposed to be? The queen of Sheba? SOME of us want a mid-range tower, quite a few, actually. Are your needs or desires any more valid than ours? No.

What's the big deal about a midrange tower anyway? The slots for your own video card? That I can sort of understand, although the smallest Mac Pro should be more than adequate for things like that, right? Or are you too cheap to cough up the dough for a baby Mac Pro?

Well, if you'd care to send me the $1600 difference between a Psystar tower and a MacPro, I might agree with you. Otherwise, you're living in a rich man's dream. If you can't 'sorta' understand that the MacPro is way overpriced for someone just looking for a decent GPU and a few expansion slots, well I can't help you.

 

[Sun Baked]

Nope. I looked earlier myself and nowhere on the Tiger or Leopard retail boxes does it say it's an upgrade.

...

This is a really flimsy position for Apple to take.

Not really, if Apple wishes to say it is an upgrade it is an upgrade.

Since Apple hasn't allowed any other entity a license to install their OS on their computers.

Apple has done this in the past ... though at that time, they had to have ROMs for each OS install.

This switch to complete ROM in RAM with little in the way of actual ROM in firmware ... makes the case different from the clone era.

If Apple's OS check checks for a string in the machines ROM for a boot check, they can still claim that all the retail OSs are upgrades and all the licensed first copies have Apple ROMs on board.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Unfortunately Apple isn't what it once was in either aspect. I can't count the new machines to flawlessly for half a decade or more like my old PowerMacs. The super thin designs are too fragile and the legacy PowerPC support is dragging leopard down in the reliability aspect as well.

What does PPC support have to do with ANYTHING? Are you saying Apple cannot make a reliable Intel computer unless they ditch code that has nothing to do with the Intel code that runs on their computer? That makes zero sense. But then most of the posts in this thread are just a bunch of rich fan-boys in a frenzy to voice their support for the people slowly taking all their money so what else should I really expect? I'm sure you'll come back with some nonsensical argument about how fast Intel would be without PPC code dragging it down even though there is NO PPC CODE on an Intel machine.

 

[dejo]

This is incorrect. Apple could support a set amount of hardware (just like they do now). They could even be snobs about it - high end, name brand stuff. Intel motherboard, Intel CPUs, specific chipsets and ram. Limit it. But let people build something to suit their needs.

"Limit it. But let people build something to suit their needs." What happens when people's needs cannot be met by the limits? You think people are complaining now? Wait until they allow Mac OS X on other hardware but only for a limited set of specs. They'll be screaming bloody murder at Apple! And many of them will be posting here to whine.

 

[arjaosx]

So would you consider companies such as , MicroSoft, etc.. as thugs for stealing ideas and some patented, copyrighted, trademarked from smaller companies to incorporate into they own designs. Gimme a Break.

No wonder you hear of and MicroSoft heading into court, only to settle. If they were not thugs they would not get into these issues, however world have resolved resources and come to agreements long before a product hit the market. These corporation are on different, they do not need you siding with them.

You have taken my statement waaayy off context. I am not saying that Apple and MS are not thugs but we should also give them credit to what they have achieved and not steal these from them as I would say if you have created something original and somebody stole it from you.

These big companies when they "steal" ideas are liable and they know that but they don't steal they buy out small companies that is at least acceptable because the originator of the work got compensated. Psystar is maing money from something that they are not paying for.

What is disturbing is people are supporting a wrong idea because each have agendas that will be served if Psystar wins this.

I am not trying to blindly protect Apple, what i wanted to point out that though Psystar winning might benefit a lot of people, their method is wrong. They do not own OS X and they are using Apple's own product to generate some buzz and gain money from it.

 

[AlexisV]

Don't include everyone in your "lets" business there. I'm rooting for Psystar. Apple is very greedy and it's time someone sent them a message that they can't monopolize the hardware market for a publicly available (I can buy it at Best Buy retail for $129) operating system. More importantly, if they won't fill the market for a reasonably priced mid-range tower or even a cheap-market one like the PC World has, then someone else should do it for them. Apple is guilty of illegal tying of their OS to their hardware. I hope Psystar files a counter suit immediately. If they can hang on, they will win because a legal precedent was already set for illegal tying of software to hardware and Apple has done that in spades by marketing what is essentially a fancy shell around a plain Jane Intel box using mass market parts.

Oh, and I don't care if you disagree. It's called an opinion and I clearly don't share yours.

Guilty of illegally tying the OS to their hardware? What? That's like saying it illegal for Samsung to use Samsung's operating system on their mobile phones, or BMW to use their own OS in their cars' onboard computer. Just because they sell the OS separately makes no difference. They could stop selling it tomorrow and force you to buy a new machine if you wanted the newest OS if they wanted.

Apple don't owe you anything and they certainly don't 'have' to fill a gap in the market just to keep you happy. What a load of baloney.

Apple are a private business and could happily scrap all their machines tomorrow and only sell a $3000 Pro.

I like your paranoid disclaimer at the end.

 

[opeter]

Guilty of illegally tying the OS to their hardware? What? That's like saying it illegal for Samsung to use Samsung's operating system on their mobile phones, or BMW to use their own OS in their cars' onboard computer. Just because they sell the OS separately makes no difference. They could stop selling it tomorrow and force you to buy a new machine if you wanted the newest OS if they wanted.

Apple don't owe you anything and they certainly don't 'have' to fill a gap in the market just to keep you happy. What a load of baloney.

Apple are a private business and could happily scrap all their machines tomorrow and only sell a $3000 Pro.

I like your paranoid disclaimer at the end.

I hav to agree with AlexisV... well, Apple is with their Computers and OS in the same boat as let's say Atari Computer was with their Computers and ATARI TOS oper. system. Or AMIGA with their Amiga Workbench etc.

Apple computers are closed stuff, it was never meant to be open as their PC competitors (of course we can remember the Mac clones in early to mid 90s, but that was just a test from Apples site).

I would also like to buy simple PC, made with components for 300-400 $ and have simply put the MacOS Retail DVD into the DVD drive, wait for disc to spin up and with some simple clicks install the MacOS.

But this won't happen. That's why i'm not using a Mac anymore. My PowerMac tower began to be to slow and i hade to get rid of it, before the price drops even further. So, now, i'm a PC user. And who cares? I can run the same Adobe products on the Windows PC too!

The computer is for me just a tool, nothing more.

 

[goosnarrggh]

If Leopard is an upgrade, that means it requires the user to own and have installed an earlier version of OS X for the install to work.

I don't agree with this. The fact that a piece of software is licensed as an upgrade only does not impose any obligation on Apple to insert any code that verifies whether or not an older version of a product had previously been installed. It also does not impose any requirement that the boxed product must only contain an updater rather than the the full code necessary to install the product from scratch.

For example, consider the "upgrade" edition of Word Perfect X4, which, according to the license agreement, can be used not only by any person who already holds a valid license for any full version of Word Perfect since version 8.0, but also by any person who already holds a valid license for any full version of Microsoft Word since version 97. Obviously, since it is intended to be possible for people who already owned a huge variety of very different software, it would be impractical for them to release special software that is able to patch *any* of those various different programs and end up with Word Perfect X4 as the final result. Selling a piece of software that is physically capable of being installed from scratch, while contractually preventing the user from using it in unintended circumstances, is the most practical alternative.

In Apple's case, measures such as requiring a media check to verify that the installer already has a valid copy of the original installation disc, or making the upgrade disc only capable of patching an existing installation, would be redundant in any genuine Macintosh system, because the original license for the use of Mac OS is automatically conveyed with every piece of Macintosh hardware that Apple has ever manufactured. The fact the Mac OS X is only authorized for installation on Apple-manufactured hardware (and typically cannot be directly installed on non-Apple hardware without modification that is beyond the means of most inexperienced users) ought to be sufficient to ensure that it is only installed on hardware that is already eligible (other considerations beyond their control such as compatibility with obsolete CPUs set aside for the moment) for the upgrade edition.

I would think that, if the end user were to privately make modifications in software which render it possible to install Leopard on the original hardware of a Performa 5400, then they would be entirely within their legal rights to do so. Having done that, though, they may have forfeited their right to resell that Mac unless they wiped the hard drive first because otherwise they'd be selling an edited work which, according to the CleanFlicks precedent cited earlier, would constitute copyright infringement.

Having wiped the hard drive, I think they'd again be within their legal rights to sell the Leopard DVD, along with the wiped Performa, to somebody else under first sale doctrine which has been upheld in a number of cases where the EULA would have prohibited it. Then, somebody else would be perfectly within their legal rights to make the same modifications, and re-install the software again.

 

[Veri]

This is a poor analogy since you own the book, but you own only a license to the software. There is a difference.

In what way do I own the physical DVD medium any less than I own the paper the book's printed on? Or are you saying I have rights to the content of the book that I don't have to the content of the DVD? Because I certainly can't OCR that book and upload it to my web site unless I want a spanking.

You could argue that there's a difference between annotating the original (scratching the DVD?) and annotating the installed copy, but since I could write software to automate the process of producing the annotated copy in the digital case, all we're talking about is a short wait after I've legitimately obtained Apple's software and downloaded the third party patches.

 

[newb16]

Apple could sell the Psystar Open for 1000 and do incredibly well.

Then the $400 difference ( added value ) is OS X itself. And still there are people insisting that Apple should let anyone install it on any computer for $100-some price tag?

 

[HyperZboy]

All of these arguments here about EULAs and copyright minutia are a complete waste of time as this will never even get that far.

PREDICTION: This case will not go to trial and will be settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money where either no blame will be assigned or Apple declares victory and Psystar just ceases to exist.

Why?

#1: Apple has too much to lose by putting its EULA or copyrights before a judge. If all of even part of Apple's EULA is tossed out by a judge, the floodgates to Mac clones will be officially opened and there will be far greater threats to Apple than Psystar.

#2: Psystar does not have the money to take this to trial, but even if they do attempt to, Apple will make them an offer they cannot refuse to go away.

I wouldn't even be surprised if Apple ends up just buying the assets of Psystar secretly and just shutting them down quietly and no EULA test or test of Apple's copyrights ever happens. Apple will appear to have won and other potential Psystars will think twice before jumping into the Mac clone business and certainly no big company like Dell would consider taking the risk.

Oh, and 6 months later, Apple will release that mythical xMac mid-range tower to wonderous applause and adulation.

That's how it's gonna shake out. You heard it here first.


Oh, there's just one more thing... It'll be a bad day for free market competition.

 

[nickane]

xMac FTW.

Whatever the legal questions involved and the tired car analogies we can derive from them, the fact is that it was amazing Psystar got away with it for as long as they did. Besides, the boxes weren't really the best value for money and Psystar were profiting from the osx86 project which was supposed to be open source; so, all told they're not the crusaders some ppl are making them out to be.

That said, they may prove rather helpful in forcing Jobsy's hand on the xMac, whether sometime soon (hence the sudden legal response) or a couple of MWSFs away. And on that day, I, for one, will buy 2 of the things almost immediately.

 

[englishman]

Website down

Is it me or is http://www.psystar.com/ down?

 

[Tosser]

Link to this "decision"?

You don't own any commercial software. Where do people get this idea? If you own it, you can change whatever you want and resell it as your own, legally, without even crediting the original creator.

At least here, when I buy a cd (or a magasine or a book) I do OWN the product. I, however, do not gain the copyright.

On the same note, when I sell an article, a radio piece or whatever, I still own the copyright to the material, but I do not own the right to redistribute the individual piece of work (unless we agreed upon that).

Is it me or is http://www.psystar.com/ down?

Works for me.

 

[gehrbox]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Psystar isn't technically selling the machine with OS X pre-installed so I'm not sure how the whole issue of re-selling software comes into it. Once it's out of the box, it's owned by the customer, not Psystar, and the former has given the latter the right to install it on the hardware. That's not Psystar selling it after it's been installed.

Whether they install it in a non-Apple branded PC or modify it to enable it to run on the non-Apple box they are violating Apples EULA.

Apple appears to be fine with the hackintosh community's experimental works, but when somebody sells it in any volume they see a potential impact to their sales and the obvious explosion of other copy cats if one is allowed to get away with it.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Is it me or is http://www.psystar.com/ down?

downforeveryoneorjustme.com

 

[zacman]

Nope. I looked earlier myself and nowhere on the Tiger or Leopard retail boxes does it say it's an upgrade.

Even if it did it probably wouldn't matter a lot (at least in Europe). In Germany Microsoft tried to stop retailers selling OEM versions of Windows (and yes on "box" it says, that these version can only be sold together with a new PC) and failed.

After the court rulings now every retailer just sells the 80€ OEM version of Vista instead of the full version and it's perfectly legal no matter what's printed on the box.

 

[gnasher729]

Guilty of illegally tying the OS to their hardware? What? That's like saying it illegal for Samsung to use Samsung's operating system on their mobile phones, or BMW to use their own OS in their cars' onboard computer. Just because they sell the OS separately makes no difference. They could stop selling it tomorrow and force you to buy a new machine if you wanted the newest OS if they wanted.

Even though I fully agree with you, people making this argument (like Psystar) are missing something: Even if this were all true, what right would it give Psystar to copy Apple's code? If Psystar brings this up in court, maybe in a counter claim, the question would be: How does it damage Psystar? Answer: Not at all. If Apple were forced to sell the OS for other computers (which they won't be), they would sign a deal with Dell or HP. Not with Psystar.

 

[gnasher729]

There is reportedly another decision, back in 1984, that a computer maker can not require as part of the sale that the software must be run only on their own hardware. Apparently this is called "tieing" or "bundling" or something like that.

There was such a decision, but the situation was different. Company A built computers and a matching operating system. The computers were commodities and could be built by other companies. Company B wanted to build similar computers and sell them, but A's operating system was the only one that would run on it, and A wouldn't sell the OS separately. A computer without the OS that A wouldn't sell was useless. B couldn't (in practice) sell computers because A wouldn't license the OS.

But in this case, Psystar can easily sell their computers with any kind of operating system, like Windows, dozens of Linux variants, Darwin, BSD, you could probably get BeOS or AmigaOS working on it. The fact that Apple doesn't license MacOS X to them doesn't keep them from selling computers.

Yes I see Apple is saying the boxed version is an updater, but any where on the box state this? Before opening the box does it say this is only a upgrade and not a full version?

It says inside the box. Since Psystar sold more than one computer, they would have known after opening the first box. So they _might_ have an excuse (whether it holds up in court or not is difficult to say) for shipping the very first computer with MacOS X, but none at all for all others.

Filing lawsuits, etc, just makes Apple look like the next Microsoft. The good old 'stomp on the little guys to enforce your monopoly' routine.

Perhaps Apple should buy Psystar and then shut them down. It's a technique that's worked for MS in the past, and I really don't see Apple as being any different.

Microsoft has recently been suing a few people who have been making illegal copies of Microsoft software and selling it. I haven't seen anyone blaming Microsoft for that. Also, do you think IBM should have bought SCO? What purpose would buying Psystar serve? Anyone can build PCs from parts, install MacOS X and sell them except that most people are sane enough to know that is asking for trouble. If Apple rewards a company doing this by buying it, there will be a dozen springing up.

What if I rip out the last few pages and write my own ending on the back cover? Isn't that legal?

You can modify a book without making a copy of it. As you said: Take the book, remove the last few pages, write on the back cover. Imagine the book was sold as a TextEdit document: Start TextEdit. Open the document (copy is made into RAM). Delete the last few pages, write your own ending, save to disk (copy is made onto the disk). Copyright law only allows you to make copies that are necessary for the use of what you bought (like installing MacOS X on a computer, reading a document into memory), but not for other purposes (modifying MacOS X, creating a file with a different ending). If Psystar somehow managed to modify MacOS X without copying anything they might be in the clear. But I can't see them having the hardware tools that would be needed to _modify_ the Leopard DVDs.

 

[newb16]

Apple may not support it, they may not encourage it, and they can even try to restrict it but so long as I'm not violating the one computer/one license rule, it should be fine.

But no, it isn't like I think I should be able to go to Apple tech support when I have a problem.

As retailed L-pard is licensed as 'upgrade', you have no more rights to install it on a bare machine than if it was totally pirated copy. And they may decide not to sell non-upgrade version at all, except with their hardware.

 

[PowerFullMac]

Yes, somebody did point that out.

I also fail to see what Priuses have to do with Pystar and OS X...

Honestly, this is not the Prius thread! You dont see me associtating DeLoreans with OS X do you?