Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[Patriiick]

Once a company gets to the size of Apple it bears certain additional responsibilities. This is established and accepted (although hard fought for ) with patents on drugs say. Likewise with a product like OSX that runs people's businesses - Apple are putting unreasonable restrictions on its use. I like the analogy of the hammer only being able to be used with certain nails.

As someone said above - if this is the law - the law is an ass. We are not advocating not paying for OSX.

The analogy with drug patents is - i hope - a tongue-in-cheek joke.

The restrictions on OSX are not unreasonable considering that OSX is not, by far, your only option to run a business.
There are other cost-comparable options (windows, Linux) that make those restrictions totally legit.
Lack of alternative options could - indeed - be remotely considered as unreasonable but that is clearly not the case here.. at least not in a defendable way.

While we're doing stupid analogies:
Is the screwdriver being unreasonable because it cannot hack nails ??

Apple bears no "responsabilities" to anyone except its shareholders and board.
If Psystar cranks out OSX clones that in the end turn out to be turds, buggy, lacking driver support and security nightmares, the perception of OSX could suffer greatly... This could cost millions in missed sales to Apple.

Apple's responsability - if any - is to avoid that best it can.

Furthermore, psystar bases its product interest on a blantant infringement of OSX TOS, which is not the best and most recommendable business practice. It s not "the little guy being bullied by the unfair giant"..come on people.. it's a company trying to make a quick buck by SELLING FOR PROFIT hackintoshes.

Can anyone tell me if Psystar cares about any "responsability" to the users ?

 

[gnasher729]

At no point - at least as far as I can tell - are Psystar attempted to sell OS X as "their own".

The "modifications" they need to do to make it work, as far as I'm concerned, fall well within the boundaries of both the spirit of copyright and "fair use".

Again, if I can make a store-bought copy of OS X work on a PC I own and not be guilty of anything, there is no justifiable reason why Psystar should be guilty of anything for doing the exactly same procedure on my behalf. None. At all.

"Fair use" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Fair use" might allow MacRumors to use a screenshot of Leopard (probably contains some parts where Apple holds the copyright; Arn probably has some pretty good idea what "fair use" allows him to do or not) to discuss some Leopard features, or allows you to quote bits from a book in a review. "Fair use" doesn't allow you to create derivative works.

Second, copyright is about the right to make copies. When you go to the shop and buy a box of Leopard, you get a DVD. You can modify that DVD and I am sure Psystar can modify that DVD as much as you like, but it must be said that modifying DVDs is very, very difficult. (Nobody stops you from painting on the DVD, that is quite easy, but modifying the data is hard. Try deleting a few bits on a DVD with a very sharp needle). As soon as Psystar makes a copy of that DVD they are on difficult legal ground: The only copies they are allowed to make are (a) a backup copy and (b) the copies that are made when the software is installed on a computer according to the license, that is on a Macintosh computer. As soon as the "modifying" involves making copies, they are committing copyright infringement.

Whether they sell MacOS X "as their own" or not - they are in hot water either way. Apple sues them for selling MacOS X as Apple's product - so they are benefiting from the goodwill and the reputation that Apple has for their own company. They want people to buy Psystar computers because Apple makes a good operating system - that is not on. Obviously if Psystar sold it as their own they would be on the hook for something else; false representation or something similar.

And last, you are not allowed to install MacOS X on a PC. If you do it, most likely Apple won't do anything about it for several reasons: Apple doesn't know about it, there is very little benefit they can get from suing you, and as long as you don't make an ass of yourself and shout out how Apple has no right of stopping you they don't care. On the OSx86 website, they are careful what they say. Legal things are avoided, and they don't challenge Apple. Psystar did exactly the opposite. They absolutely _forced_ Apple to sue them out of business.

 

[diamond.g]

Fair use will never cover the sale of something you've modified.

Is the accurate for all the iPhone unlockers as well? If so why doesn't Apple do something about that?

 

[englishman]

The analogy with drug patents is - i hope - a tongue-in-cheek joke.

The restrictions on OSX are not unreasonable considering that OSX is not, by far, your only option to run a business.
There are other cost-comparable options (windows, Linux) that make those restrictions totally legit.
Lack of alternative options could - indeed - be remotely considered as unreasonable but that is clearly not the case here.. at least not in a defendable way.

While we're doing stupid analogies:
Is the screwdriver being unreasonable because it cannot hack nails ??

Apple bears no "responsabilities" to anyone except its shareholders and board.
If Psystar cranks out OSX clones that in the end turn out to be turds, buggy, lacking driver support and security nightmares, the perception of OSX could suffer greatly... This could cost millions in missed sales to Apple.

Apple's responsability - if any - is to avoid that best it can.

Furthermore, psystar bases its product interest on a blantant infringement of OSX TOS, which is not the best and most recommendable business practice. It s not "the little guy being bullied by the unfair giant"..come on people.. it's a company trying to make a quick buck by SELLING FOR PROFIT hackintoshes.

Can anyone tell me if Psystar cares about any "responsability" to the users ?

Patrick - you aren't using your arguments consistently - on one side you are syaing Apple's profits must be protected - and on the other hand Psystar's business is for profit.

The analogy with drugs is not tongue in cheek - there will be many who rely on OSX for research/devt into health sw - not everyone uses their Macs for surfing.

Say Apple suddenly increased their prices by 100 times - what would the health companies do that use OSx sw - say you have to go for a scan and it was using OSX.

If you think all large corporations are good - well I think you've led a very sheltered life and are naive in the extreme.

 

[saltyzoo]

Is the accurate for all the iPhone unlockers as well? If so why doesn't Apple do something about that?

I would think it would cost more to find them and sue them than Apple would "recover".

Say Apple suddenly increased their prices by 100 times - what would the health companies do that use OSx sw - say you have to go for a scan and it was using OSX.

Say Apple suddenly decided not to support, develop or sell OSX anymore - what would the health companies do that use OSx sw? Would you send the Marines in to stand next to them and force them to do it?

 

[newb16]

So you would let people take your hard work and do whatever they wanted to it for their gain, and their gain alone?

If a loaf was copyrighted in the same way, you would not be able to make and sell sandwich made of it - altering and slicing the loaf is against the license!

 

[czachorski]

Explain to me how abandoning copyright law and the protection it offers serves the greater good. Explain to us how the moral rights of the creator and owner represent special interests. You confuse your own greed with the greater good and place your own needs at centre stage; where are the protections for the owner and creator of the work?

You are entirely welcome to use open-source software that places little restriction on its use. Yet, this isn't good enough for you. You want a product that's cost millions to research, develop and market to be available to you all and sundry on your own terms, not those of the owner. Do you think that OSX would even exist in the first place, if those were the terms of its license? Apple would have no incentive at all to release and support a product like this.

The day you actually create something of value that others want to buy, is the day you'll understand why things are like the way they are. In the meantime, you are free to use different computers and different OSs.

Funny how we didn't see this level of hand-wringing and hysteria with OS9. Give Apple a shot at comparative success with an attractive product and people like you want to bring it down in favour of some two-bit crummy little hardware manufacturer that has borne nothing of the cost and risk of bringing this product to market, profiting entirely off the work of others.

And yet you have the gall to come here and accuse others of not having ethics?

Amen. Great post, Blue Velvet!

It amazes me how many people have the rights of the creator entirely mixed up with their personal liberties, and go on to draw all sorts of improper conclusions from it.

 

[goosnarrggh]

So which other things that are "fair use" suddenly stop being when I get a third party to do it on my behalf ? Can I get someone to make a backup copy of a DVD for me, even if they charge me $5 for their time ?

Let's see what the US Copyright law has to say on the matter:

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. — Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

So, under section 117 (a)(1), yes: it is totally permissible for you yourself to make an adaptation (modified copy) of a piece of software for the purpose of making it possible to run that software on your computer equipment. It is also totally permissible for you to create an archival copy of the computer program. The copyright holder does not have any claim to exclusive rights against these activities.

Additionally, it is permissible for you to "authorize the making" of such adaptations or archival copies. (I'd interpret this as meaning that you can authorize somebody else to create the adaptation or archival copy, provided you yourself already rightfully own a copy of the work from which the adaptation is derived. That other person at no time personally inherits any rights to the software; they are acting only as an agent on your behalf.) The law doesn't appear to have any condition saying that the authorized agent must perform this service for free, so I'd assume it would be permissible to pay that agent in compensation for their service.

Under section 117 (b), it is also permissible for your rights to an archival copy to be transferred to another individual, provided it occurs alongside transferring your rights to the entire original copy from which the authority to create the archival copy was derived. However, an adaptation could only be transferred with the consent of the original copyright owner.

 

[dsnort]

You are entirely welcome to use open-source software that places little restriction on its use. Yet, this isn't good enough for you. You want a product that's cost millions to research, develop and market to be available to you all and sundry on your own terms, not those of the owner. Do you think that OSX would even exist in the first place, if those were the terms of its license? Apple would have no incentive at all to release and support a product like this.

The day you actually create something of value that others want to buy, is the day you'll understand why things are like the way they are. In the meantime, you are free to use different computers and different OSs.

So true!!!

I like the analogy of the hammer only being able to be used with certain nails.

Actually, there's nothing illegal or immoral in making a hammer that only works with certain nails. In fact, they do it all the time with air driven and other power hammers.

It' about time Apple had a bit of competition with their own platform. They have quite the monopoly on their hardware with respect to software.

And a very smelly homeless man will be moving in with you today. It has been decided that you have had a monopoly on your abode for too long! You need a bit of competition for the bathroom.

This is why I won't buy an iPhone... Apple limits me to one carrier.

As is your right! If you don't like the set-up, seek alternatives!

 

[englishman]

Say Apple suddenly decided not to support, develop or sell OSX anymore - what would the health companies do that use OSx sw? Would you send the Marines in to stand next to them and force them to do it?

Yes, that's exactly what would happen - look at the UK/US banks etc being proppped up right now - they cannot fail.

If Microsoft suddenly realeased a patch that broke all their systems - do you seriously believe govts would do nothing?

Obviously, this is argument by exageration/hyperbole - but the point sticks. If you have a certain market dominance - you have certain responsibilities - we (or the French?) invented it - noblesse oblige.

 

[newb16]

Psystar's biggest problem is with it's name! How do you pronounce it? Sistar? Systar? Shyster?

psee-star.

 

[Sun Baked]

Under section 117 (b), it is also permissible for your rights to an archival copy to be transferred to another individual, provided it occurs alongside transferring your rights to the entire original copy from which the authority to create the archival copy was derived. However, an adaptation could only be transferred with the consent of the original copyright owner.

Looked at the stuff from an old Apple patent lawyer who thought Apple was going to lose this case, guess he was just a patent lawyer with little copyright experience.

 

[xbjllb]

Maybe you should go ahead and buy a PC.
You seem to be on the market exactly for that since the current apple product offers dont suit you.

Buy why come do a long tirade here ?

Because I'd rather buy and support Apple. I'd rather support a company that meets MY needs THIS year, not my needs of two years ago.

I'd rather that company be Apple. But if we part ways here, so be it.

I was one of the last diehards to leave the Amiga platform; I will not make the same mistake with Apple.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Looked at the stuff from an old Apple patent lawyer who thought Apple was going to lose this case, guess he was just a patent lawyer with little copyright experience.

Maybe, if Psystar could argue to have been acting as an agent for the final customer, they might still have a case.

They, acting on behalf of the customer, bought a copy of OS X and immediately transferred ownership of the physical media over to the customer as permitted under first sale doctrine.

The customer therefore had the right under section 117 to authorize the production of an adaptation of the software as a necessary step in the utilization of the software on a machine (a beige box PC).

Psystar then proceeded to produce a modified copy of the software containing necessary adaptation, all the while acting as an agent under the customer's authorization.

 

[BenRoethig]

Maybe you should go ahead and buy a PC.
You seem to be on the market exactly for that since the current apple product offers dont suit you.

Buy why come do a long tirade here ?

Great plan. Chase away all the people who made Apple what it is if they don't blindly follow.

 

[saltyzoo]

Maybe, if Psystar could argue to have been acting as an agent for the final customer, they might still have a case.

They, acting on behalf of the customer, bought a copy of OS X and immediately transferred ownership of the physical media over to the customer as permitted under first sale doctrine.

The customer therefore had the right under section 117 to authorize the production of an adaptation of the software as a necessary step in the utilization of the software on a machine (a beige box PC).

Psystar then proceeded to produce the necessary adaptation, all the while acting as an agent under the customer's authorization.

I've been toying with that idea too, I have a feeling that is the defense psystar is going to take. I don't think it's going to hold up though.

 

[Peruchito]

Ultimately, this entire thread is coming down to two sides that are either for or against the right of the CONSUMER to CHOOSE what operating system (bought and paid for) goes on the hardware they buy. If I want to go to a junkyard and buy a Ford radio and go home and stick it into a Chevy, that is my RIGHT to do so. If I can BUY it, I can install it on whatever I want to install it on, including a boat or even above the kitchen sink if I want to. What RIGHT does ANYONE have to tell me where I can install a car radio after I buy it? So why SHOULD it be any different with a piece of software?

If it's against the law, the laws are stupid and need to be changed. EVERYTHING in this country should be about protecting the greater good, not special interests. People on the news shout about this all the time and yet the politicians keep doing whatever they feel like when they get into office. THAT is reason enough alone for me to ignore bad laws. Some people think the courts don't give a crap about morality or ethics? Well, they SHOULD because any law that is not moral or ethical should be struck DOWN by the courts the same way they strike down laws that violate a person's privacy, right to exist, right to equality, etc. Morality and ethics are EVERYTHING. If a country is unethical, the people should revolt and change it if needed. Read the Declaration of Independence. It says so point blank in it:



All these people that go on and on about laws yet give no thought to ethics and morality prove they don't deserve to live in a country like the US, which is founded on the principles of equality, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no freedom of choice with OSX to pick anything but Apple Hardware. There is no equality of hardware or hardware opportunities with other clone makers products as Apple lacks several distinct comparable models, including the mythical mid-range tower. And their decision to limit those choices and take an active role in preventing others from delivering for them is definitely affecting my pursuit of happiness in computing. I therefore declare Apple unethical and demand that their 'vertically integrated' (or dare I say monopolistic?) business model be overthrown!

What! That's ridiculous? And this thread isn't getting ridiculous? I suggest neither side will EVER agree with each other so the arguments are all becoming trite. I'm therefore bailing out of them with this final post on the matter. It actually represents my ethical and moral feelings on the matter. Bad laws should not be followed, but rather struck down. Feel free to tear it and each others posts apart until you're blue in the face. I've got better things to do like finish Throne of Bhaal on my PC (sadly the Mac version seems to cost a lot more than on a PC, despite its age, so I went with the PC version, which is yet another reason gaming on OSX isn't great; there's no economies of scale or apparently even retail shelf life to the games).

you are correct but you missed one point. if you wanted to install osx onto a pc, and you did it on your own, just like you installed the ford radio into the bathtub, thats cool. but if you are not making business out of it. you are doing it as your own personal thing. which is cool. but that is not what psystar is doing.

 

[Peruchito]

a question for the forums:
if psystar only included OSX Tiger (which apple doesn't sell anymore) would that be ok? i had a g4 that i fixed up and i needed OSX Tiger (Leopard would not run on it), but no one would sell it to me. in fact, the place i went to just gave it to me for free (burned) because it was the only way to get one.

 

[northy124]

a question for the forums:
if psystar only included OSX Tiger (which apple doesn't sell anymore) would that be ok? i had a g4 that i fixed up and i needed OSX Tiger (Leopard would not run on it), but no one would sell it to me. in fact, the place i went to just gave it to me for free (burned) because it was the only way to get one.

Makes no difference and you just admitted to committing an illegal act 9(Getting an Illegal version of Tiger (Burned to disc not org. copy).

Psystar has had this coming to them shame they are located in the wrong country had it been Iran Apple would be screwed not Psystar.

 

[marco114]

Because I'd rather buy and support Apple. I'd rather support a company that meets MY needs THIS year, not my needs of two years ago.

I'd rather that company be Apple. But if we part ways here, so be it.

I was one of the last diehards to leave the Amiga platform; I will not make the same mistake with Apple.

I really think Apple does have a good value for 95% of people. If you try to please the other 5%, you'll never be successful. I learned this a long time ago in business.

Apple isn't on their way out, they are on the way up. There aren't just a "few" Apple die hards anymore, it's more main stream all the time.

If Apple wants to restrict people to their platform, then that's their right to do so. Otherwise, they might have to charge $249 for that OS instead of $89. They are assuming you're using their hardware.

 

[goosnarrggh]

a question for the forums:
if psystar only included OSX Tiger (which apple doesn't sell anymore) would that be ok? i had a g4 that i fixed up and i needed OSX Tiger (Leopard would not run on it), but no one would sell it to me. in fact, the place i went to just gave it to me for free (burned) because it was the only way to get one.

Nope. Apple's copyright on Tiger won't expire until 29 April, 2125. Until that time, anybody that burns a copy of it for any reason other than for archival purposes, is violating Apple's copyright.

They're free to give away or resell their original copy to somebody else, in which case they'd also be obliged to uninstall it from their own computer, and to include all archival copies that were made of the software as part of the sale or gift.

Anyway, that's not directly equivalent to what Psystar is doing in this case.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Makes no difference and you just admitted to committing an illegal act 9(Getting an Illegal version of Tiger (Burned to disc not org. copy).

Maybe. It depends on his jurisdiction, but in general, he didn't admit to an illegal act (receiving an unauthorized copy is not necessarily an offense in all jurisdictions).

Rather, he just ratted out a shopkeeper who committed an illegal act (creating the unauthorized copy in the first place is an offense).

 

[Peruchito]

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.

FINALLY someone gets it. i applaud you on your intelligence. if apple computers are not the computer for you, you get something else. there is no monopoly.

 

[Peruchito]

Nope. It depends on his jurisdiction, but in general, he didn't admit to an illegal act (receiving an unauthorized copy is not automatically an offence). Rather, he just ratted out a shopkeeper who committed an illegal act (creating an unauthorized copy is an offence).

haha

true. ok. then how would i obtain a copy of tiger? i mean. i have no problem paying for it... in fact, i'd rather own an original.

 

[goosnarrggh]

haha

true. ok. then how would i obtain a copy of tiger? i mean. i have no problem paying for it... in fact, i'd rather own an original.

Amazon has copies available...

Starting at $170 used and $236 new, unfortunately...