Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[saltyzoo]

So in your view a reseller who customises a Mac for a customer has infringed copyright because "even a settings file" has been changed ?

I didn't say that. In fact, I placed that in a separate category for just that reason. I think Apple has an argument. I'm not certain it's a winnable one or not. THAT would be an interesting scenario if that is what the courts have to decide. I really don't think Apple would sue in that case though, I think code was changed.

 

[r.j.s]

Perusing their site I found this,

This does flat out say they modified something - the question is what.

Link

I wonder why it takes longer for updates to show up on a opencomputer than on my Mac ...

 

[saltyzoo]

Perusing their site I found this,

This does flat out say they modified something - the question is what.

Link

I wonder why it takes longer for updates to show up on a opencomputer than on my Mac ...

Exactly. They are changing code, no way around that, IMO.

 

[r.j.s]

This also shows that the 10.5.3 combo updater, which seems to be required, weighs in at 1.6GB. I'd say that there were some pretty massive changes behind the scenes in order for these to work.

Looks more and more like they did modify code, but like I said before, that will be determined in court, not here.

EDIT: interesting note from that page:

It will download through our installer. Do not manually download the update from the Apple website.

Why not???

 

[englishman]

When trying to see through the morass in arguments like this I often think its helpful to think in family terms.

One brother makes something that makes him a phenomenal success, beyond all expectations.

sister 2 - takes something that hyper successful brother 1 has made and uses it to make some money, with no threat to brother 1.

Would any mom, dad object to sister 2 doing this?

Accepting you've taught your kids not to steal etc.

That's the essence in very simple (I hope not simplistic) terms.

The scary thing is that most don't agree...

No revolutions, no bad laws, all authority is good, big is beautiful, might is right, the survival of the fittest ...

 

[drsmithy]

You keep saying the law is bad, but as I see it, it does exactly what it is supposed to, it protects those that create works from those looking to make money from them without permission.

Psystar are making money selling computers, not infringing copyright.

There is nothing wrong with the copyright law. Stop basing your entire argument on that weak claim.

There are a multitude of things wrong with copyright law. This is but one of them.

 

[drsmithy]

Sorry, but most of us here believe that if you disagree with a law you work through your legislators to get it changed rather than just ignoring it at will.

But, besides that, most people believe that copyright law does more good than harm. And that the law in this case is fair, even though we wish it were not so.

You seem to be doing a lot of talking for other people.

Sorry to have to break it to you, but us normal folks can't afford enough "free speech" to get legislators to change a law. Further, it's difficult to see how today's copyright laws are doing more good than harm.

 

[saltyzoo]

Your willingness to look past the parts you don't want to deal with is the problem.

When trying to see through the morass in arguments like this I often think its helpful to think in family terms.

Psystar is not a sister company to Apple.

sister 2 - takes something that hyper successful brother 1 has made and uses it to make some money, with no threat to brother 1.

You simply declare that psystar did not "threaten" Apple. There are very powerful arguments to say that "brother 1" was threatened.

Would any mom, dad object to sister 2 doing this?

If "brother 1" did not agree to it then, I should hope to goodness they would object.

Accepting you've taught your kids not to steal etc.

If "brother 1" didn't agree, then IT IS STEALING.

That's the essence in very simple (I hope not simplistic) terms.

Not really. My book example is much more relevant and Apples to Apples comparison (no pun intended).

The scary thing is that most don't agree...

I find it scary that anybody thinks stealing is ok if "brother 1" "isn't harmed". Stealing is stealing, and "brother 1" is the one that gets to decide if he's harmed or not.

No revolutions, no bad laws, all authority is good, big is beautiful, might is right, the survival of the fittest ...

Nobody but you is saying those things.

Psystar are making money selling computers, not infringing copyright.

Then it will not effect their business if they are forced to stop infringing copyright. They can still sell computers all they want just like any other PC manufacturer does.

Sorry to have to break it to you, but us normal folks can't afford enough "free speech" to get legislators to change a law. Further, it's difficult to see how today's copyright laws are doing more good than harm.

So because you feel powerless (you aren't) you think it's ok to ignore the laws? Good luck with that one in life.

 

[r.j.s]

Not all laws are good, not all authority should rule. Stop trying to look at generalizations, they don't work.

Unfortunately, in your example, the sister did steal from the brother. It doesn't matter that you think the brother should look the other way. It's the same here, only Psystar and Apple aren't brother and sister, the aren't even friends.

Think of it this way. Competitor 1 makes a product, in order for this product to work, it NEEDS product 2.

Because Competitor 2 wants to use product 2, but doesn't want to pay for product 1, they make product 3. In order for product 2 to work on product 3, they must make some modifications. Instead of gaining Competitor 1's permission, they just do it, market it and sell it as a better option than Competitor 1's.

That is what is going on here, it's not some family thing where the parents feel bad for the younger sister because she can't be successful like her brother ...

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Psystar are making money selling computers, not infringing copyright.

You and I both know that their entire business model is based around selling OS X computers. The companies claims that they merely sell a computer "capable" of running OS X are totally disingenuous, and the issue revolves around whether it's legal to make a business of building and selling hackintosh boxes.

Manufacturers have the right to prevent other companies from selling unauthorized clones of their products, even if they aren't representing the clone as the original. There's precedent there. Psystar claims Apple is violating anti-trust legislation, in that they can't restrict consumers' use of an OS to certain hardware. But that legislation does not protect companies trying to sell an OS on unauthorized hardware. In other words, there is a legal argument that Apple can't prevent you from making your own hackintosh (though they can refuse to support it). BUT there is no argument for doing so and selling the resulting machine for profit as a de jure or de facto business..

P.S. the back-and-forth with analogies is just muddying the waters - I think the facts of the case can be argued directly here.

 

[macsmurf]

Exactly. They are changing code, no way around that, IMO.

All Macs ship with a chip called the System Management Controller that contains a key used to decrypt certain binaries needed to run OS X. In order to get around this, you basically need to modify part of the operating system.

For more information: http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/

Psystar did this, or rather, they added the modified parts, developed by others, to the system.

I think it is interesting that you distinguish between modifying a textual and a binary file. In essence there is no difference.

 

[drsmithy]

[
EDIT: interesting note from that page:


Why not???

Because Apple's updater is obviously going to assume it's installing on a real Mac and probably overwrite some of the "non-standard" files.

 

[drsmithy]

Exactly. They are changing code, no way around that, IMO.

Throwing in a few scripts (or wrapping one around) to make sure your customisations don't get overwritten by an installer making incorrect assumptions, is not "changing code".

That's like saying if I write a shell script to go out and check whether or not a bunch of Macs need an update, then have it automatically download and install, I've "changed code".

 

[drsmithy]

I didn't say that. In fact, I placed that in a separate category for just that reason. I think Apple has an argument. I'm not certain it's a winnable one or not. THAT would be an interesting scenario if that is what the courts have to decide. I really don't think Apple would sue in that case though, I think code was changed.

You said:

[...] If even a settings file is changed, then I think Apple has an argument. If "code" is changed, then it is clear cut.

That you think Apple "has an argument" suggests to me that you think it would be copyright infringement. I'm not really sure there's any other way to interpret it, unless you're waiting for a judge to make up your mind for you ?

 

[macsmurf]

You and I both know that their entire business model is based around selling OS X computers. The companies claims that they merely sell a computer "capable" of running OS X are totally disingenuous, and the issue revolves around whether it's legal to make a business of building and selling hackintosh boxes.

Manufacturers have the right to prevent other companies from selling unauthorized clones of their products, even if they aren't representing the clone as the original. There's precedent there. Psystar claims Apple is violating anti-trust legislation, in that they can't restrict consumers' use of an OS to certain hardware. But that legislation does not protect companies trying to sell an OS on unauthorized hardware. In other words, there is a legal argument that Apple can't prevent you from making your own hackintosh (though they can refuse to support it). BUT there is no argument for doing so and selling the resulting machine for profit as a de jure or de facto business..

P.S. the back-and-forth with analogies is just muddying the waters - I think the facts of the case can be argued directly here.

The hardware is not a clone or in any way modified to work like what Apple uses. Hackintoshes are just normal PCs.

In my opinion, the first part of the issue is, whether it is wrong for company to sell their expertise by performing certain actions on a buyer's behalf, such as installing an operating system, without the express permission of the copyright owner.

The second part of the issue is, whether it is wrong for a company to modify the OS on the buyer's behalf to run in a way not intended by the copyright owner. For example, a company that charges a service fee for jailbreaking an iPhone.

 

[CWallace]

In what way is the enforcement of a bad law fair?

Because it is the law and we, as a society, have agreed to be bound by laws for our overall mutual benefit and protection?

There have been many "bad" laws throughout history, and many of them have been changed. Some through violent opposition and some through peaceful means. Eventually, society comes to a consensus that the law is "bad" and needs to be changed and society then implements that change through whatever mechanisms exist for such a change (legislative action, referendum, petition, legal decision, etc.).

This lawsuit is one way to help decide if society truly views Apple's EULA as "bad law". But until such time society makes that determination, it is still the law.

wonder why it takes longer for updates to show up on a opencomputer than on my Mac ...

If Psystar is not actually modifying the OS X codebase, but is instead using means external to that codebase (drivers, emulators, etc.) to allow OS X to run on those machines, they would want to make sure any updates to the OS X codebase did not break those means.

 

[localoid]

You said:

That you think Apple "has an argument" suggests to me that you think it would be copyright infringement. I'm not really sure there's any other way to interpret it, unless you're waiting for a judge to make up your mind for you ?

Taking someone's original work, adding to it or altering it, and then distributing the derivative work without the permission of the creator of the work isn't permitted under US copyright law if the original work is protected by copyright. If the original work is in the public domain that's another question...

 

[englishman]

Because it is the law and we, as a society, have agreed to be bound by laws for our overall mutual benefit and protection?

...

This lawsuit is one way to help decide if society truly views Apple's EULA as "bad law". But until such time society makes that determination, it is still the law.

Good job Nelson Mandela didn't agree with you - and the unsung hero of tiananmen square. And all the other little guys fighting ...

http://www.joeydevilla.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/tiananmen-square-tanks.jpg

 

[CWallace]

Good job Nelson Mandela didn't agree with you - and the unsung hero of tiananmen square. And all the other little guys fighting...

Thank you for deliberately omitting the parts of my post that directly applied to your comment so you could try and score a cheap shot.

Epic fail.

And I was at Tienanmen Square in the days leading up to the Chinese Army going in and lost a number of friends when they did.

 

[macsmurf]

Taking someone's original work, adding to it or altering it, and then distributing the derivative work without the permission of the creator of the work isn't permitted under US copyright law if the original work is protected by copyright. If the original work is in the public domain that's another question...

Are you allowed to buy a work and then hire someone to modify it for you?

 

[CWallace]

Are you allowed to buy a work and then hire someone to modify it for you?

It likely depends on the type of work it is and how the rights transfer from the creator to the owner.

 

[macsmurf]

It likely depends on the type of work it is and how the rights transfer from the creator to the owner.

Let me rephrase: Should you be allowed to buy a product and then hire someone to modify it for you? Let's say you buy an iPhone and then pay a company to jailbreak it. Is that wrong?

 

[localoid]

Are you allowed to buy a work and then hire someone to modify it for you?

You'd run into legal trouble if you start distributing the altered code. Otherwise who would even notice?

Section 117, Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation, appears to address this issue: "Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner."

 

[englishman]

Thank you for deliberately omitting the parts of my post that directly applied to your comment so you could try and score a cheap shot.

Epic fail.

And I was at Tienanmen Square in the days leading up to the Chinese Army going in and lost a number of friends when they did.

Sorry to hear about your experiences. And I certainly wasn't trying to score any cheap shot. I was merely trying to argue by hyperbole.

But I didn't read your post closely enough, apologies - you were accepting that there can be bad laws, in a well argued way, I see. And I acknowledge this isn't one that's worth dying for.

Let's assume good will.

I think the fairest thing then would be if both sides were bound to spend an equal amount on legal fees.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The hardware is not a clone or in any way modified to work like what Apple uses. Hackintoshes are just normal PCs.

On the contrary, Psystar is at pains to convince you that the OpenMac is anything but a "normal PC".

Psystar is using Apple's intellectual property without authorization, and Apple is going to win this lawsuit, guaranteed.

I don't understand why some people here and elsewhere have these bizarre entitlement issues. Just because you want a cheaper Mac, or a Mac with a midtower case, doesn't remove Apple's right to keep OS X on Apple hardware, at least officially. People building their own hackintosh is one thing - selling them is something totally different.

Go look at the OSx86 community - while there is a significant minority of conspiracy theorists, most of the "hackers" have no love for Psystar...after all, Psystar's ability to sell unauthorized Mac clones is predicated on the results of the OSx86 community's hacks. So they are cheesing off both the hackers and Apple.