So do I, but this is the wrong way to go about it. The outcome was justified, and how Psystar ever thought they'd win against Apple's legal team is beyond me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In the post I replied to (https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/8818538/) you quoted several paragraphs from me, but the only text you wrote was:
Your first quote is about copyright law; both are part of a section taking Psystar's argument at face value and applying a best-case scenario (for their argument). That is, Psystar complains that the EULA is illegally restrictive; the court wrote that it isn't, certainly not enough for a summary judgement against Apple. I can't see anywhere in there where the judge also says "and purchasers are definitely bound to the EULA" or even that Apple's restrictions are legally binding. For example, at the very end, the judge's language is that Apple "seeks to control" and "attempts to control"; I see nowhere where the judge goes beyond the needs of the summary judgement to rule on the applicability of EULAs. The judge doesn't need to do that, because the restrictions Apple seeks wouldn't constitute a monopolistic misuse of copyright so blatant that no trial is necessary.
(the judgement)
Going back to the original post I replied to (https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/8817479/), the only text you wrote was:
I've looked around the rest of the thread, but still don't see any quotes that back your argument; in 11 pages, of course, I might have missed it. If you look at the number of the post, you can right-click it to copy the URL and then paste it back to refer to it.
(Without references, "clearly" is another of those weasel words.)
Unfortunately that is not the case. Whether or not an OEM PC has Windows installed, the OEM pays a fee to Microsoft for a Windows license and passes the cost of that license fee on to the customer.
It's a major - if not the major - reason Microsoft has been able to maintain such a stranglehold on the market with Windows. Whether you use Windows or not, you pay for it when you buy an OEM machine. So an OEM PC with OS X as an option would still have a "Windows Tax" attached to it.
Yes, with the expenditure of great time and money. Most people lack the will or the interest to do so which is why the "Windows Tax" is still levied and attempts to offer alternate OS' (like Linux) have been very unsuccessful for the OEMs.
And they use that money to continue to innovate, not just in OS X, but in other areas. How was the iPod's development paid for? Or the iPhone's? iTunes? iLife? iWork? If Apple's revenues go from billions per year to just tens of millions, they won't be able to afford to develop new products.
Microsoft is able to make Windows work because everyone has to buy it through those OEM contracts and therefore Microsoft needs to do nothing but collect billions of dollars every quarter from those OEMs.
Apple doesn't have that luxury and they're not going to be able to.
Apple may only have less than 10% of the PC market at the moment, but they have the most lucrative part of that market. So if Apple is charging $500 to $1000 more per PC than an OEM would, that means Apple has to sell 5 to 10 times as many OS X licenses (at $100 a pop) just to make the same amount of money.
I admire the optimism of those who believe that 25-50% of the world's PC buyers would choose OS X, but personally, I find the probabilities of that happening to be so low it borders on the farcical.
I cannot see how Apple could make more money licensing OS X than they do selling Macs. If it was a truly open market, it might be possible, but it isn't. Microsoft has an entrenched position that no government is willing to evict them from, preferring to just taking a ten-figure bribe (in the form of a "settlement") every couple of years to continue to look the other way.
Apple computers are expensive. I don't argue that. Even when Apple lowers the price, they're still expensive. But the public keeps buying them, even though they are so expensive. And I doubt it's just because of OS X. There are plenty of options (well, one less now) to run OS X on a non-Apple hardware and none of them require a PhD in Computer Science to do so. So for those who want OS X, but don't want to pay the premium of an Apple-branded computer, there are plenty of options available and many of them are literally "plug and play" (like EFi-X).
For everyone else, there's Macintosh.
Several years ago in law school, we looked at several cases with similar facts but with completely different outcomes. The US Supreme Court were unable to find absolute truth in clones. One vote was 5-4 and the other 4-5, with dissents spread across the political spectrum.
The free flow of commerce is a huge thing conservative judges push for, even if it appears to involve piracy issues, and liberal judges clamp down on such actions, except for high tech. No, Al Gore and the Democrats did not invent the internet, but over here in Silicon Valley, they have a very cozy relationship. And then there is the appeals process. A lawyer friend of mine in the field told me to forget every I ever learned in school, or about common sense in general, because this is a hornet's nest.
The free flow of commerce is a huge thing conservative judges push for, even if it appears to involve piracy issues, and liberal judges clamp down on such actions, except for high tech. No, Al Gore and the Democrats did not invent the internet, but over here in Silicon Valley, they have a very cozy relationship. And then there is the appeals process. A lawyer friend of mine in the field told me to forget every I ever learned in school, or about common sense in general, because this is a hornet's nest.
Okay, I think I understand where I mis-phrased my argument, but the general point can still stand if I approach it differently.
You are right that the traditional EULA and the GPL have different targets. However, the core basis for both exists in the same contract law. Even if EULAs as they are presented now are made illegal (after the fact and requiring you to chase a refund that you may not even get), there is nothing preventing the terms from being presented in a different manner (that is still a EULA) that can be made legal.
If we were to invalidate EULAs on the whole, then we'd be denying either a specific class of license agreements, where the law would likely be poorly phrased and wind up not achieving the goal of the legislation. Or, you'd see the shotgun approach which would wind up invalidating license agreements as a whole.
The more likely approach to dealing with bad EULAs is to ban the practice of the shrinkwrap EULA, which is the real problem we see with them. It still leaves the EULA on its own as valid.
And that's where you are wrong. If EULAs are invalidated in their present form, it doesn't affect the GPL or GPL'd works at all. The GPL is not based in contract law and doesn't restrict usage at all. The GPL is based around copyright law, and extends your distribution rights.
It's always been a binding contract, no different to a verbal contract or a written contract ... when you install the software you are agreeing to the terms of that license contract. If you don't agree, dont install the software - it's that easy.
The fact that most people don't bother to read it and that most companies don't bother to strictly enforce it doesn't make it any less binding.
Capitalism doesn't work ... hence the recent / current "financial crisis" caused by greed. Capitalism is simply a bouncing ball lurching between bouts of "success" and "failure".
I remember that part, but usually they slip a couple extra terms into the wording. I couldn't remember if they said something to the effect of "only for Apple computers".
Both Apple's EULA and the GPL are licenses. That's what the "L" stands for. To the extent that a particular jurisdiction makes a distinction between contracts and copyright-related licenses, they're both in the same boat. The only reason the GPL applies to someone who receives GPL'd software is because they implicitly accept the GPL restrictions (and make no mistake - the GPL restricts your rights) when they accept/download the software.
I have been very interested in this too, just because I enjoy scandals (not conspiracies per se)! Sadly, I don't much expect to see anything here. They stiffed their first legal team which you would not expect if there were background funding and the new legal team--last I heard--looked like a small group of opportunists looking to make a name for themselves and probably went into the situation with eyes somewhat open.
Some sliver of hope for a juicy scandal: The new legal team would have a notion of the out of pocket travel, court and other related costs themselves and these must be substantial--no doubt way more than a legal firm looking at this case would want to subsidize. No matter how you follow the money here, well, there just isn't enough of it to banish the notion of a sugar daddy in the shadows entirely. We can only hope.
Whether capitalism works or not depends from the viewpoint. I know many people for whom it works out quite fine. However, I also know quite a few people who are just standing by, being unsuccessful at getting up from the bottom rung of the ladder..
We need competition to keep Apple on their toes. Pystar was just that, I'm affraid now we could be seeing Apple sleeping at the helm.
When Psystar gets around to creating its own operating system, THEN you can call them competition. So far they're no more competition to Apple than is the guy who crashes a van into the Apple store window, steals a bunch of macs, and sells them out of the back of the van.
I always try to read threads concerning Psystar because I love a good train wreck (and Britney has been quiescent lately) so this weekend has been wonderful as we have the train wreck and the Mac geek fun going all at once!
So far I have yet to see a recent post here or anywhere to the effect, "I bought a Psystar and in the box was..." or, "I own a Psystar and am worried..." or even, "Hi. My name is Tom. And I am, pause with dry cough, a Psystar owner." Early on, there were some reviews and publicly revealed purchases, but in the last year nothing on any forum I can find.
There are two interesting interviews we will likely never hear. One is the interview with the person who, over this Nov 15-16 weekend, realized that he/she needs to get their Psystar order in FAST because this may be the last opportunity and proceeded to immediately order online or by phone. Ship date advisory, etc.??? Everyone knows that there really is someone exactly that gullible in a country where evolution is disbelieved by a sizable plurality and in which a majority (as I recall) believe in actual angels. Okay, thats another conversation. I'm...dragging...myself...back...from...the brink. There. Back
The other is an interview with the UPS or FedEx driver(s) who service the facility from which Psystar ships (and receives). These folks have regular routes in most areas, I think. An enterprising journalist might be able to piece some interesting facts together and offer an idea as to the scale of actual operations. Also I think their operation is in an industrial park and employees of neighboring business might be interesting interview subjects for anecdotes if nothing else. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a private detective or two haven't had thoughts along these same lines in the past few months. Of course, we would never see their findings posted online.
So far I have yet to see a recent post here or anywhere to the effect, "I bought a Psystar and in the box was..." or, "I own a Psystar and am worried..." or even, "Hi. My name is Tom. And I am, pause with dry cough, a Psystar owner." Early on, there were some reviews and publicly revealed purchases, but in the last year nothing on any forum I can find.
There are two interesting interviews we will likely never hear. One is the interview with the person who, over this Nov 15-16 weekend, realized that he/she needs to get their Psystar order in FAST because this may be the last opportunity and proceeded to immediately order online or by phone. Ship date advisory, etc.??? Everyone knows that there really is someone exactly that gullible in a country where evolution is disbelieved by a sizable plurality and in which a majority (as I recall) believe in actual angels. Okay, thats another conversation. I'm...dragging...myself...back...from...the brink. There. Back
The other is an interview with the UPS or FedEx driver(s) who service the facility from which Psystar ships (and receives). These folks have regular routes in most areas, I think. An enterprising journalist might be able to piece some interesting facts together and offer an idea as to the scale of actual operations. Also I think their operation is in an industrial park and employees of neighboring business might be interesting interview subjects for anecdotes if nothing else. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a private detective or two haven't had thoughts along these same lines in the past few months. Of course, we would never see their findings posted online.
Apple needs serious and real competition.
Psystar sold so few computers, I expect my local Apple store beat them on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. And the Hackintosh community together is probably a rounding error.
Apple shipped a bit under 2.5 million Macs in Q2 of this year (~900k desktops and ~1.4 million laptops). If a competitor can ship a half-million each of mini-towers, netbooks and "gaming laptops" a quarter running OS X, that would probably be enough to get Apple's attention and encourage them to launch an Apple-branded version.
They have what, 5% of the market? Seems to me they have lots of competition.
The last time Apple permitted clones, they nearly went out of business. Then you wouldn't be able to buy ANY systems with Mac OS.
How exactly was Psystar's violations and IP thievery "competition"?
Someone stealing Apple's IP and then reworking it is not competition - such competition cannot, by its very definition, even legally exist in a commercial setting, as we are seeing here.
Apple's competitors are other $1000+ machines competing in the same Premium space as Apple. You can also claim that Apple's competition at large are HP, Lenovo, Dell in general, at whatever price point. The only issue with this, however, is that cheaper options have made no more impact on Apple's market than more expensive options.
Apple was never competing with Psystar or any DMCA-violating operation resembling Psystar. Psystar was completely outside the market and beyond the pale of legality, operating as a rogue entity. Besides, Psystar's sales seemed to have amounted to next to nothing, indicating very little interest in what are essentially fake Macs. This operation was doomed to fail from the very beginning.
Some of the greatest competition and leaps in the Mac OS came from people modifying the OS.
However these companies followed Apple's rules of not messing with the OS, changing files, or copying code.
Daystar learned to patch around code, came up with a multi-CPU patch, and their IP was later purchased by Apple and rolled into the OS.
Those HW upgrade companies that hacked Apple files were quickly attacked, heck even a recent HW upgrade maker copied their competitions code and were attacked by IP owner.
Didn't matter if Apple owned the code or not, if the OS installed the file, Apple didn't want people messing with it.
Basically if you are going to compete, be clever and write your own code, drivers, and OS patches.
You're confused. "Piracy" just means copyright infringement. Psystar was/is engaged in the "ultimate" form of piracy: making illegal copies and then selling them. See the Wikipedia entry for Software Piracy and then explain how it's somehow not considered piracy to charge money for illegally made copies.
Actually, according to the court decision, this is not the case.
Psystar may have bought any number of boxes containing MacOS X, and they may have shipped any number of these unopened boxes to customers with their computers, and all of this was completely legal and Apple didn't complain about it and it doesn't matter one bit.
These boxes were unopened. The software on them has nothing to do with the software that was installed on the Psystar computers at all. Whatever software was installed didn't come from the DVDs inside these boxes, it came from somewhere else, and that was what the court decision was about.
Whether Psystar shipped closed boxes with MacOS X with their computers or not doesn't legally make the slightest difference. That's what Judge Alsup said.
Doubtless, even if they shipped the OS X box with the computer and made the consumer install it, they'd be found to have contributorily infringed or induced infringement (by assisting or inducing the consumer in violating the EULA and thus infringing the copyright).
Last time I checked, Apple had plenty of competition: more than 90% of the PC industry and more than 90% of the cell phone industry. This tired refrain of "Apple needs competition" completely misses the point that Apple is the competition. They are the only vendor in existence offering a compelling alternative to Windows*. They are such a vibrant competitive force that companies with far larger market shares have had to rethink their product designs and business strategies to meet the challenge of a superior product from Apple, and that's across multiple industries. So, no, Apple doesn't "need competition", Apple is providing the competition.
Other people have already pointed this out and more will pile on, but I have to mention that Psystar was/is hardly "competing" with Apple. A guy who sells stolen Bose speakers out of his van isn't "competing" with Bose -- just stealing from them.
* Not to discount Linux or FreeBSD, but I'm talking about an alternative to Windows for average consumers. If anyone wants to argue that Linux or FreeBSD is a compelling alternative to Windows for consumers, I won't argue back. My only point is that they haven't made much of a dent in the consumer PC market and therefore haven't yet proved to be "compelling."