Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer

[localoid]

I would argue that the wholesale replacement of one file with another (in this case, the relevant driver for the TPM module), is not a "modification". It's no different, for example, than a PC reseller replacing a standard Windows driver for a particular component with a different one.

Dell, Gateway, etc. don't go to their local shop and buy copies of the Windows OS to install on the PCs they're selling. They get it under the terms of a licensing agreement w/Microsoft which permits modifications, etc.

If they're taking the driver, disassembling it and modifying it, that's a somewhat different matter. But I don't believe they are.

Proabably not. It really doesn't matter is it's compiled C or plain text.

 

[localoid]

... In this context, the points should be made that, in some (most ?) European countries, copyright is, indeed, considered a "human right".

Indeed, I would be astounded if several major - possibly even most - European countries did not consider copyright to be a more signficant "humand right" than "the right to bear arms".

A copyright is a form of legal protection to the creators of original works, not something that protects consumers. Trademark laws may function to protect consumers however.

 

[gehrbox]

And they waited until after someone "cloned" their hardware to implement this clever, preconceived idea because.....?

for the same reason encryption is continuously revised. You don't really think Apple didn't see this coming do you?

You don't believe that a company that has Apples level of planning does not consider what to do when the inevitable occurs?

 

[CWallace]

Well, if OS X Leopard was an upgrade, the licence would require that you had a license to a previous version.

That is not necessarily the case. Just because most software upgrades work this way does not require that all must work this way to be considered an upgrade. There is no official and legally binding "standard" for upgrades - it is whatever the company offering the upgrade wants.

And even if there was such a legally-binding standard, all Apple-branded computers ship with an Apple OS installed. In Apple's view, an Apple-branded computer itself is the "pre-existing license" so it would meet that standard, if it existed. It also happens to meet your claim that there must be a "previous license clause" in order for it to be considered an upgrade.

A Psystar computer or a Hackintosh would not be a "pre-existing license" and therefore would be ineligible to be "upgraded" to OS X.

 

[Chance9888]

Apple could use it for something else

Apple should not have sued. They could always just use this to sell their product. If people like it, they may consider a real Mac...

 

[macsmurf]

That is not necessarily the case. Just because most software upgrades work this way does not require that all must work this way to be considered an upgrade. There is no official and legally binding "standard" for upgrades - it is whatever the company offering the upgrade wants.

I disagree, but let's say you are right for the sake of argument. That would mean that the term is essentially meaningless. It means nothing in itself and it is therefore irrelevant.

And even if there was such a legally-binding standard, all Apple-branded computers ship with an Apple OS installed. In Apple's view, an Apple-branded computer itself is the "pre-existing license" so it would meet that standard, if it existed. It also happens to meet your claim that there must be a "previous license clause" in order for it to be considered an upgrade.

The whole argument went a little haywire. My only point was that OS X and Macs are separate products in all ways but one; that the company selling both products says they're not. Some would say that's all that matters but if you look at it critically, that in itself does not make much sense.

OS X and Macs can be used independently of the other. However, if Apple thinks of them as the same product then it of course makes sense that they would frown upon using them separately. That you are only allowed to use OS X on a Mac is entirely consistent with Apple's assertion that the two are inseparable. However, when we look at the reverse case, the argument breaks down. Apple has absolutely no problem with you using a Mac without OS X, and you are free to do so without any licensing restrictions getting in your way.

So even if you ignore the fact that the tieing of OS X to macs is entirely artificial and claim that they are inseparate because Apple says they are, your argument is still internally flawed.

 

[englishman]

I don't think anyone expected such a cynical attempt as Psystar's this early. They are trying to apply the Windows OS model to the Apple world...

Headline:

Microsofts next OS to run on MS HW only.
-----------------------------------------------

Its ok say Macrumours forum member....

-------

...it works both ways

 

[saltyzoo]

An entry in /etc/hosts (or the OS X equivalent, not entirely sure how "UNIXy" it is) could trivially do this.

It's possible.

In this context, the points should be made that, in some (most ?) European countries, copyright is, indeed, considered a "human right".

Indeed, I would be astounded if several major - possibly even most - European countries did not consider copyright to be a more signficant "humand right" than "the right to bear arms".

The right to bear arms is not a human right. Human rights are things like life, freedom of expression, equality before the law, food, the right to work, and the right to education. Having OS X is not a human right. Nor is it something to overthrow your government over.

for the same reason encryption is continuously revised. You don't really think Apple didn't see this coming do you?

You don't believe that a company that has Apples level of planning does not consider what to do when the inevitable occurs?

I didn't say they weren't expecting or planning for this. But, you didn't answer the question. If they already have a solution, why wouldn't they implement it BEFORE someone did this? It's a good question. One that I can't answer either.

Headline:

Microsofts next OS to run on MS HW only.
-----------------------------------------------

Its ok say Macrumours forum member....

-------

In further news, Dell strikes a licensing agreement with Apple to begin the long awaited distribution of Mac OS X on Dell PC's.

This scenario wouldn't happen because MS would cease to exist within a year if they refused to budge on that stance. And if they did, companies like Apple and RedHat would be all over the OS market instantly killing MS once and for all.

But the bottom line is they could if they wanted to, and could work it out technically. It would just be colossally stupid for the largest maker of operating systems to go that route.

Again, I must repeat, I don't like that Apple is a closed system. I wish they'd change their minds. I think it's a mistake. But none of those opinions matter.

 

[dukebound85]

wait....i can only play mario on nintendo systems??

**besides the hacks to get on iphone and computer emulators haha which makes it just like this case in a sense

 

[englishman]

In further news, Dell strikes a licensing agreement with Apple to begin the long awaited distribution of Mac OS X on Dell PC's.

This scenario wouldn't happen because MS would cease to exist within a year if they refused to budge on that stance. And if they did, companies like Apple and RedHat would be all over the OS market instantly killing MS once and for all.

But the bottom line is they could if they wanted to, and could work it out technically. It would just be colossally stupid for the largest maker of operating systems to go that route.

I don't believe it would kill MS - it hasn't hurt Apple! There are many businesses who would still chose to stay with a closed MS system (Apple users on the whole are happy with it) - the point is it would undesirable from a World economic viewpoint and unfair.

Many commentators have acknowledged that it was "colossally stupid" of Apple not to license their OS years ago - its the reason most people cite for the difference in size between Apple/MS. And what's revealing about SJ is he hasn't learnt the lesson.

You imagine how much more reliable MS OS would be if MS restricted their HW - I think if anything Apple/OSX would cease to exist.

No, the world, govts, law etc cannot allow these unfair, restrictive practices.

 

[gnasher729]

I don't believe it would kill MS - it hasn't hurt Apple! There are many businesses who would still chose to stay with a closed MS system (Apple users on the whole are happy with it) - the point is it would undesirable from a World economic viewpoint and unfair.

Many commentators have acknowledged that it was "colossally stupid" of Apple not to license their OS years ago - its the reason most people cite for the difference in size between Apple/MS. And what's revealing about SJ is he hasn't learnt the lesson.

You imagine how much more reliable MS OS would be if MS restricted their HW - I think if anything Apple/OSX would cease to exist.

No, the world, govts, law etc cannot allow these unfair, restrictive practices.

You haven't thought this through at all.

First, if Microsoft were to announce that the next version of Windows can only be run on Microsoft computers, the EU would close their operations in Europe down immediately, and I think the DOJ in the USA wouldn't have a choice but doing the same thing. Microsoft holds 90 percent of the desktop operating system market; that is an absolute monopoly.

Second, businesses would _run_ away from Microsoft.

Third, I would expect a Dell/HP/IBM/Apple alliance that will throw together a few billion dollar in cash and replicate within a short time every single bit of Microsoft software. I think iPhone 2 would be delayed a bit because Apple would have to grab the OS market first.

When you write "Many commentators have acknowledged that it was "colossally stupid" of Apple not to license their OS years ago - its the reason most people cite for the difference in size between Apple/MS. And what's revealing about SJ is he hasn't learnt the lesson." I am wondering what alternate universe you are living in. If there was any such commentator they haven't "acknowledged", they have "falsely claimed". And if you compare Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in any meaningful way, I think the winner is clear. Bill Gates has made billions of dollars that are no good to him. He has created a mediocre operating system, a mediocre game console, or more than mediocre MP3 player. Steve Jobs is creating the worlds best computers, the words best operating system, the worlds best MP3 player, now the worlds best phone, and just for fun he has created the worlds most successful animation studio - at the time Pixar was sold, it had actually beaten Disney in the all time animation film hit list!

When you talk about Microsoft hardware, I remind you of an old joke: "The first time that Microsoft builds any product that doesn't suck is when they start making vacuum cleaners".

 

[gnasher729]

Indeed, I would be astounded if several major - possibly even most - European countries did not consider copyright to be a more signficant "humand right" than "the right to bear arms".

You are confusing things. In many European countries there is the "right of authorship" which means basically that if I write a book or some software then nobody than me can claim that they have written it. This is considered in unalienable human right, which cannot be sold. But this is only about the right to claim that I have written it - the rights of commercial exploitation, which is what copyright is all about, is something completely different.

 

[ihabime]

I didn't say they weren't expecting or planning for this. But, you didn't answer the question. If they already have a solution, why wouldn't they implement it BEFORE someone did this? It's a good question. One that I can't answer either.

Again, I must repeat, I don't like that Apple is a closed system. I wish they'd change their minds. I think it's a mistake. But none of those opinions matter.

The solution is Snow Leopard, intel only so Apple has a much more manageable pool of hardware to verify. I'm not saying they'll do it, but it is a step in that direction.

I think, the reason they're not waiting and going after Psystar now is that they don't really mind the OSX86 community in general, they probably think of it as advertising, a good way to let people try out OSX without support, but with Psystar, it was commercial and it came down to Apple protecting it's investment.

As to Apple opening up its OS to other computers, it won't happen, there's just not enough money in selling OSs anymore. Microsoft makes most of its profits from Office now and they have long term deals in place with all the manufacturers and long term support deals with businesses and a ton of cash in the bank to fight off any competition.

There's also the inertia of the market, a huge number of people think of windows and office as the computer, they have no idea what an OS is. This is why OpenOffice.org and linux WMs tend to look like microsoft products on the surface, even minor changes confuses the hell out of people who've been brought up thinking windows is the only OS.

Not opening Mac OS to clone makers was a huge, monumental mistake, but it was a mistake made two decades ago and there really isn't a way to fix it now, many have tried and failed, Beos, NeXT, linux, were or are all better than windows, but MS has plowed them into the ground.

Before anyone gets mad, linux is still trying, it's gaining ground and in the end it may win, but it's gonna take a looooong time and linux doesn't have to issue profit and loss statements to its shareholders.

 

[englishman]

You haven't thought this through at all.

...

And if you compare Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in any meaningful way, I think the winner is clear. Bill Gates has made billions of dollars that are no good to him. He has created a mediocre operating system, a mediocre game console, or more than mediocre MP3 player. Steve Jobs is creating the worlds best computers, the words best operating system, the worlds best MP3 player, now the worlds best phone, and just for fun he has created the worlds most successful animation studio - at the time Pixar was sold, it had actually beaten Disney in the all time animation film hit list!

Whoaa! In the history of Computing, and personal computing even Apple fans would have to acknowledge what MS has done.

Apple has had a great British designer, were lucky in choosing a Unix variant as the basis of OSX to replace their awful precursor OS.

In the history of computing up to now SJ/Apple have been bit part players. Bill is now part of the world stage as a philanthropist - good on him - a tough businessman but obviously an enlightened man.

And those adverts of Apple are cringing.

Where is Apple's Visual Basic?

Apple products look nice but just look through some independent reviews on the net - rarely do they come out on top.

 

[gehrbox]

I didn't say they weren't expecting or planning for this. But, you didn't answer the question. If they already have a solution, why wouldn't they implement it BEFORE someone did this? It's a good question. One that I can't answer either.

I did answer your question. My reference to encryption revision was intended to point you in correct direction. Follow the money for a reason why they don't jump in ala Microsoft with activation codes and hardware verification. It does not come without a price to implement and support. There is a cost in PR as well. Apple thought it had sufficient legal grounds and the current hardware and software configuration would prevent easy cloning in volume.

Until there was an actual clone manufacturer they had no need to invest money in protecting the hardware software link. Now there is a wiff of a threat, so the first step for Apple is the legal system. If that fails they will begin locking down the software and hardware to protect their interests.

Does that answer your question more clearly?

 

[saltyzoo]

I did answer your question. My reference to encryption revision was intended to point you in correct direction. Follow the money for a reason why they don't jump in ala Microsoft with activation codes and hardware verification. It does not come without a price to implement and support. There is a cost in PR as well. Apple thought it had sufficient legal grounds and the current hardware and software configuration would prevent easy cloning in volume.

Until there was an actual clone manufacturer they had no need to invest money in protecting the hardware software link. Now there is a wiff of a threat, so the first step for Apple is the legal system. If that fails they will begin locking down the software and hardware to protect their interests.

Does that answer your question more clearly?

Yes. I don't agree with you, but yes.

 

[northy124]

In this context, the points should be made that, in some (most ?) European countries, copyright is, indeed, considered a "human right".

Indeed, I would be astounded if several major - possibly even most - European countries did not consider copyright to be a more signficant "humand right" than "the right to bear arms".

Where are you getting this info from? It isn't true that most EU countries consider copyright infringement a "human right" and what is the "the right to bear arms" about last I check there is no "the right to bear arms" in many EU countries.

 

[CWallace]

First, if Microsoft were to announce that the next version of Windows can only be run on Microsoft computers, the EU would close their operations in Europe down immediately, and I think the DOJ in the USA wouldn't have a choice but doing the same thing. Microsoft holds 90 percent of the desktop operating system market; that is an absolute monopoly.

Second, businesses would _run_ away from Microsoft.

Maybe, maybe not.

Before the rise of the local area networks and client/server computing, businesses ran on closed systems based around mainframes and dumb terminals by IBM, Digital, Control Data, Honeywell, and many others.

In many ways, businesses have just exchanged one form of computing monopoly for another.

 

[CWallace]

I disagree, but let's say you are right for the sake of argument. That would mean that the term is essentially meaningless. It means nothing in itself and it is therefore irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant whether or not it is an "upgrade" or a "full edition", but it is not irrelevant how Apple currently expects it to be treated. Apple expects it to be installed on Apple-branded hardware only, regardless of what it's called.

I suppose the could change the name to "OS X for Installation on Apple-Branded Hardware Only Whether or Not It Does or Does Not Have a Pre-Existing Apple Operating System Installed On It", but that's kind of a mouthful...

OS X and Macs can be used independently of the other.

Yes they can, but Apple both explicitly and implicitly states that they are not to be used independently of each other. This is the crux of the legal argument being made: Apple says they should not legally be able to be used independently and Psystar says they should.

That you are only allowed to use OS X on a Mac is entirely consistent with Apple's assertion that the two are inseparable. However, when we look at the reverse case, the argument breaks down. Apple has absolutely no problem with you using a Mac without OS X, and you are free to do so without any licensing restrictions getting in your way.

True, but that is because Apple has no real control over how you, as an individual user, uses the product once you have purchased it. No personal computer maker does.

If Psystar sold customers a computer and instructed those customers to go buy OS X at the Apple Store and install it and offered no support in helping those customers install or configure OS X on those computers, Apple would have no legal grounds to challenge those sales anymore then they have the legal grounds to challenge ASUS for selling a motherboard that can support OS X as a Hackintosh or Lian Li for selling a case that ASUS motherboard can be put into to host a Hackintosh.

But Psystar is not doing that. They are selling customers a computer with OS X installed on it by them and they are helping them maintain it. At a minimum, this is a violation of Apple's EULA for OS X so Apple has grounds to mount a legal challenge on that basis. It may or may not be a weak basis, but it nonetheless is one. If Psystar is also modifying Apple's intellectual property to make OS X run on their computers, then there are also DMCA, general copyright and patent infringement challenges Apple can mount, as well.

 

[drsmithy]

But what you are missing is that they can't subvert the update process without changing Apple's codebase. Somehow they are getting the update process to look to them for updates rather than Apple. Think about it.

Straight off the top of my head I can think of at least two ways to do this without changing Apple's "codebase".

Do you really think that a company suing for copyright infringement is in any way remotely a human rights violation? Really? We should overthrow our government because we don't agree with copyright law? Are you for real? Do you really mean this, or is it just an overdramatic attempt to make a point? If you don't mean it, I wish you'd stop it, because it's ridiculous. It demeans those that have fought for human rights.

There are some _very_ significant and long term implications from an out of control set of "intellectual property" laws. More so from the patents side, than copyright, but it's certainly a hell of a lot more important than "I can't install OS X on my hackintosh".

 

[drsmithy]

I already said that it is sold separately, and yes, if Apple deems it an upgrade, it is. Or would you like them to implement some kind of previous version check to make our lives more difficult?

A straightfoward statement along the lines of "this software can only be used to upgrade an existing copy of OS X" would go a long way.

Apple have always been rather cagey about the implication that it an "upgrade" rather than "full version". I suspect this is at least somewhat for marketing purposes so they can favourably compare OS X's $129 to whatever a "full" version of Windows costs.

 

[drsmithy]

Just installing Leopard unmodified on the machine is not a violation of copyright law since Apple has not sought and been granted a copyright that encompasses OS X on an Apple-branded computer. It may very well be impossible to be granted such a copyright, which is why Apple is forced to use an EULA to enforce such a pairing.

Copyrights are not "sought" and "granted". They simply exist for any "creative work" that someone comes up with.

Apple could not have a "copyright that encompasses OS X on an Apple-branded computer". It's entirely possible in today's world they could suitably abuse the patent system to achieve something similar, however.

Copyright only comes into this because the EULA states that OS X is only licensed for use on an Apple-branded computer. Therefore, if you're using it on anything else, you are infringing copyright. Personally, I do not believe (and would dearly love to see a court rule) that such EULA restrictions are enforceable. I believe in some other countries such EULAs have already been found unenforceable (so from that perspective someone like Psystar might have better luck if they pulled up and moved somewhere else).

The argument Apple is putting forward - and this trial will discover - is that Psystar is making direct modifications and alterations to the OS X codebase, which would be a copyright violation.

That's one of Apple's allegations. It is not the only one. It woudl have, for example, no direct bearing on the overall "run OS X on a non-Apple machine" concept.

You can buy a Windows Vista Upgrade and install it on a machine with no operating system by installing it twice - it technically upgrades itself. However, Microsoft does not intend you to do it this way and has likely subsequently modified it's EULA to prohibit such action (assuming the original EULA did not already prohibit it).

I'm pretty sure the EULA for Windows upgrade versions specifically says you must already own a license for one of the "qualifying products". Had Apple had a similar statement in OS X's EULA, Psystar would probably have never even started up shop.

 

[techlover828]

how can apple lose? I do wish that apple would let us build our own computers, or get cheeper.

 

[drsmithy]

I seem to think that it is not possible for something to be a full version and an upgrade at the same time. In fact, I would argue that the definition of an upgrade is, that it is not a full version. Call me crazy

That's because you're comparing different things. "Upgrade" from the licensing perspective (ie: cheaper) and "Full Version" from the "it installs onto a bare machine" perspective.

 

[drsmithy]

I disagree completely. I would argue that the issue is that PC users attracted to the OS X platform don;t like the idea of being funneled into a relatively limited series of hardware choices. I completely relate.

While some of this attitude certainly exists, IMHO a far more significant reason is that there are a few gaping holes in Apple's hardware lineup and Psystar has filled what is probably the most obvious one. People have been screaming for a mid-range Mac tower for *years* and have been almost completely ignored.

Personally, I'd buy an around-iMac-priced tower with half the specs of a Mac Pro tomorrow, if one existed. The company I work for would probably buy a dozen or more of them, to cater for our users that have a Mac preference.

The single-sourced hardware complaint is relatively insignificant, next to the "we need more than an iMac but less than a Mac Pro" complaint. Especially from the business customer perspective, since most businesses only use a single hardware supplier anyway.