Suck it Psystar, you mooching bastards.
Way to go Apple!
If Apple can find them! Wasn't Pystar the company that no one could find the actual physical address for?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple can find them! Wasn't Pystar the company that no one could find the actual physical address for?
It's what makes Apple unique and who they are today. Why in the hell would we want them to be anything like Microsoft? The goal is to be NOTHING like M$ and continue making quality products, not junk.
I think I know what you think you are talking about, but you don't know what you are talking about. Lots of facts in this case are sealed. For example, Apple's lawyers received very detailed information about Psystar's business, which is all Psystar's trade secrets. This information is under seal, which means that neither Steve Jobs nor the public will ever get this information from the court or from Apple's lawyers. Psystar filed a motion that it should be allowed to publish exactly how Apple's copy protection for MacOS X works. That is Apple's trade secret and Apple rightfully didn't want to make this trade secret published. Psystar wanted the information public (it is obviously available to Psystar's lawyers, but they wanted it known to the world), which I interpret purely as an attempt to harrass Apple. So this motion to seal is about keeping a trade secret of Apple secret, not to sweep anything under the carpet.
Obviously I disagree completely with yur view.
What on earth are you going on about?
Since Apple isn't selling cable TV or HDTV sets, that part of your rant can be ignored here. For the rest: The DMCA has two parts. One is about publishing copyrighted information; that part lets Arn run this site without the fear of lawsuits if someone posts copyrighted information, but is also easily abused to stifle freedom of speech. That part has nothing to do with this case. The other part makes it illegal to break effective copy protection measures. That part can make it legally difficult to make copies that you have the right to make, which is bad. It also makes it extra illegal to copy thinks that you are not legally allowed to copy anyway, and that were protected. Like stealing my things is illegal, stealing them when they are behind a locked door is more illegal. That is the part that Apple used, and I am absolutely fine with that part.
Judge Alsup made clear that Apple absolutely has the right to restrict its software in this way. It is not anti-competitive because Apple has no monopoly (it would be anti-competitive if MacOS X had 90% market share and Windows had 10%), and it is not copyright abuse, because Apple doesn't tell you what you can or can't do with someone else's software, only what you can or can't do with Apple's software. So there is no chance in hell that anyone will be able to overturn Apple's SLA. By the way, contrary to your claim above, this case _has_ just been tried and Apple's SLA _was_ examined. There was no jury trial because juries decide about facts (if Apple says Psystar made copies and Psystar said they didn't then we would get a jury trial), but both sides agreed about the facts, and the judge could decide about the law in summary judgement.
I'm sure I'll be pummeled by the FANBOIS now, so let the feeding frenzy begin...
Obligatory strawman. You are trying to produce the false impression that anyone disagreeing with you is not objective and attacking you in person. That, of course, could not be more wrong. I respect you as a person, just the stuff you write is complete rubbish.
Amiga OS is still there mired in legal fights, lack of capital, and bankrupties.
Like NeXT, it is an available OS and probably a compelling purchase for somebody willing to toss a couple/few hundred million fixing the legal mess and updating the code.
But why, it is cheaper to stick with the masses and spend as little as possible.
Don't bet on it. Greedy scum like that will no doubt file more counter-suits and appeals.
wgilles said:
Hell, I can sell Apple's software much cheaper than Psystar ... just buy one Snow Leopard DVD (or even beter, download it from "fail sharing" sources), copy it a bazillion times onto DVD-R discs and then sell then at $5 a go. It's still nowhere near legal to actually do it though.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
Right on!
Screw those PIRATES!I KNEW this was going to happen!!!
Oh yeah!
Now go after all the scum with OS X installed on non apple hardware... YEAH!
See what being cheap does? Even Judges don't like cheap people he he!
Right on!
Screw those PIRATES!I KNEW this was going to happen!!!
Oh yeah!
Now go after all the scum with OS X installed on non apple hardware... YEAH!
See what being cheap does? Even Judges don't like cheap people he he!
I applaud this decision. Keeping 
hardware with software only makes sense. It has worked best this way. Why is so many so determined to get it on open platform. Look how well this worked for Windows.
I actually had someone scoff at me today when they found out I had recently switched from PC to Mac. They implied I was stupid for such a decision...my reply...I can't wait to ditch every piece of PC equipment and replace with an product. I can't wait...
hardware with software only makes sense. It has worked best this way. Why is so many so determined to get it on open platform. Look how well this worked for Windows.I actually had someone scoff at me today when they found out I had recently switched from PC to Mac. They implied I was stupid for such a decision...my reply...I can't wait to ditch every piece of PC equipment and replace with an
product. I can't wait...The ignorance and complete lack of common sense that some people display here is astounding. I particularly like the argument that Psystar should have won simply because the person saying so doesn't like Apple. Boy, there's sound legal judgement for you! These are the types of folks that end up on a jury panel with you and then proceed to let emotion and personal feelings be their guide to a decision instead of stuff like.... FACTS, EVIDENCE, and THE LAW!
Folks also seem to forget that Apple is REQUIRED to go after businesses like Psystar. They are a publicly traded company and they MUST protect their business interests or they will be facing a lawsuit from their shareholders.
Anyway, big thumbs up to Apple for kicking the crap out of Psystar. Too bad it is unlikely that Apple will ever see a dime in damages. I can only hope that Apple does carry it far enough to get a monetary judgement and then uses its considerable weight to make the principles at Psystar as miserable as they possibly can.
Mark
These are the types of folks that end up on a jury panel with you and then proceed to let emotion and personal feelings be their guide to a decision instead of stuff like.... FACTS, EVIDENCE, and THE LAW!Folks also seem to forget that Apple is REQUIRED to go after businesses like Psystar. They are a publicly traded company and they MUST protect their business interests or they will be facing a lawsuit from their shareholders.
Anyway, big thumbs up to Apple for kicking the crap out of Psystar. Too bad it is unlikely that Apple will ever see a dime in damages. I can only hope that Apple does carry it far enough to get a monetary judgement and then uses its considerable weight to make the principles at Psystar as miserable as they possibly can.
Mark
I agree except for this point. Business Judgment Rule. They will be given great deference as to whether, and who, they decide to go after. No company would lose that lawsuit (and no plaintiff would get past summary judgment). Shareholders don't get to control the day-to-day operations of the company.
As many people have pointed out, Apple is the one company that survived the dawn of the personal computer age, which Apple itself created, thanks to Woz and his Apple II, whereas all the other computer companies have gone out of business fighting against the Microsoft noose around the OEM market. Apple has found a profitable niche making high end quality products with integrated hardware and software they can control, and thus they offer a real alternative to PC/Windows products, probably the ONLY viable alternative that has managed to break free and prosper. Jobs couldn't do it with Next. So rather than bashing Apple, you should be grateful that because of Macintosh, 1984 wasn't like 1984... but it could be if Apple goes down the drain. Then we'll all raise our salute in Hail, Gates!
Look, it's simple, even for those, like yourself who would find a way to rationalize burning down your neighbor's house if it was in your selfish best interest: Apple sells an operating system with a legally binding, backed by the courts EULA, that states you can't install their software on anything other than their hardware. They do this to protect not only their income stream for selling hardware, but to protect the business strategy of providing a stable product, and the resultant good reputation that comes with it (number 1 in customer satisfaction, most trouble free operating system, etc.). They have not yet chosen to get into the mid to low range netbook market, because they don't want to risk having that reputation marred by unpredictable results due to hardware that is not of high enough quality to insure a good customer experience. As the OWNER OF THE COPYRIGHTED PRODUCT, it's their LEGAL RIGHT to put that restriction on their software, and the person buying the LICENSE TO USE that software's responsibility to either FOLLOW THE LAW or buy another product. Whether you run Psystar or build hacintoshes in your basement, you're still breaking the letter and the spirit of the EULA and the law. Period. There are no excuses, justifications or rationalizations that change that fact. Period. No buts. No BUTS. Didn't you hear me? I said NO BUTS.
I'd like to start by saying that's an extreme comparison. Comparing felony arson - which would destroy the primary asset(s) (house and property) of an individual- is quite different than installing an operating system outside of the EULA.
Despite this, I will reply.
I merely stated that my friend would have (and nearly did, due to bootloader issues) not run OS X on his netbook if he could not hackintosh. If hackintoshing didn't exist, he wouldn't have bough a $30 copy of Snow Leopard- which is $30 of revenue for Apple, minus the cost of the boxed copy (not a lot- probably ~$2) and support costs (he can't get phone or in-store support, so other than bandwidth and some other small support costs), Apple does make a profit on that copy.
That does not make what he did legal.
That does not make it ethical/"right".
It's his rationalization, not mine. I am not a Mac user, but I run genuine Windows used within license on all of my computers. On Macrumors, this may be considered the greater offense by some
I am merely stating:
- His rationalization
- The rationalization other people are coming to
- How, in his specific situation, Apple would have received no profit if he could not Hackintosh in that instance
- How I understood how some reached that rationalization. (Not that I have the same.)
Verifiable and true fact, affirmed by this case. He is breaking the law by hackintoshing.
These are points that I totally agree with you on- they came up during the debate between AppleMojo and myself.
I believe it's on the next page or page after the post of mine you replied to.
This is debateable, and no one really knows the answer but Apple.
Apple knows their market, and their market enjoys paying a premium for premium products.
The netbook market is very low end and very low margin. It would have the potential to cannibalize the sales of more profitable macs, and could clash with the premium image Apple - and their customers- want maintained.
It's his legal responsibility. I did not claim that he wasn't doing anything illegal. I didn't even say what he did was ethical. Just that I understood (not agreed with) the logic he used to come to that conclusion, and that Apple, by the definition of an accounting standpoint, made a profit on that sale of Mac OS (in all likelihood- software costs per individual copy are small. It's the whole and spreading the cost of development/support over all of them.)
A point on which I have not, and will not disagree with you on.
I hear you, and to reiterate one final time, I just said that he had a rationale (that I could see, not agree with) and that, by the accounting definition, Apple made a profit.
I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. Whether you disagree with what I said above or not, I appreciate your response regardless.
I sincerely doubt it. In an interview, the owner of Psystar said he's spent near $100k on attorneys. Eventually, you have to cut your losses and move on.
No, Apple is pissed because a company was profiting off of software that is subsidized by hardware and was egregiously violating Apple's copyright (through violation of the EULA).
Apple's business model is not a fir for every computer user- indeed, I use desktops and I there is no "midrange" ($1k-$2k) upgradeable tower. As a result, I choose not to purchase Apple computers.
Psystar did. While I strongly believe that not every hackintosher would have purchased a Mac if hackintoshing was not possible, I also agree with the inverse- and I believe many of Psystar's customers would have bought a Mac instead if they did not have Psystar as an option.
Indeed, Apple is goliath and Psystar was the tic in this case. Apple decided to crush Psystar- who was clearly in the wrong, legally speaking- to preserve their business mdoel.
Open hardware has not worked for Apple in the past, and I sincerely doubt that Jobs will change from a business model that keeps his customers- and the bottom line- positive.
No. Consumers win. Because it keeps Apple in business so they can compete with Microsoft.
Isn't that always reason enough?
Boy, there's sound legal judgment for you!
It's not a trademark (e.x. dumpster) that could become genericized. However, waiting for Psystar to become more popular and for other companies to be bolder and bolder, more customers purchasing hackintoshes (many of those instead of Macs) would not be prudent.
C'est la vie. Psystar's over $100,000k in the hole on lawyers alone, and they have to try to pay back their investors - it'll be a fun legal process for the involved parties to debate.
Apple probably doesn't care that much about the money. They just want to kill Psystar and make an example of them to others.
He could have been referring to this case backing up shrinkwrap licensing (EULAs), which are non-negotiable. Not for the Aplpe exclusivity, but for the other impacts it could have regarding the legal restricrtions that could be made on EULAs.
By extension, software having licenses which are legally fully revokable without compensation for any reason is probably legal.
I'm a consumer and I did not lose anything.
If you don't want to buy Mac that's fine, but don't rope the rest of the world in with your choice. Consumers are obviously more than happy with the status quo...just look at Apple's ever increasing market share.
Why....cos the stuff works!!!!
Why don't you get it
EULAs are a necessary evil. Software makers need to place restrictions on software use and dissemination in order to make money (unless they have a hardware-tie in - also using the EULA, or they can make money on value added services). Negotiating individual licenses with each consumer is completely impractical.
Lots of contracts are "non-negotiable." When you buy a box of cereal at the grocery store you've entered into a non-negotiable contract, governed by the UCC. Non-negotiable contracts are a fine thing, as long as there is non-monopolistic competition. If I don't like your take-it-or-leave-it contract, I can go to your competitor.