Apple Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement

[gnasher729]

Actually they did NOT make illegal copies, get your facts straight. Each Psystar came with a legal copy of OSX. Until this ruling, they broke no law.

Read the bloody ruling over on www.groklaw.net before you talk nonsense and accuse me of not having the facts straight. Some Psystar computers (and the court had evidence that it wasn't all) came with _closed_ boxes containing MacOS X. There was nothing wrong with that, Apple didn't complain about it, and it was totally, totally irrelevant to the case.

The reason why it was irrelevant was because these boxes were closed, so whatever software was on those machines was not copied from the DVD in these boxes, so they had nothing to do with the case at all. Whether Psystar shipped their computers with a box containing MacOS X, or a box containing Windows, or Tetris, or an empty box, it didn't make any difference whatsoever.

Now a judge has said the EULA is a legal, binding contract and to break it is illegal. So from now on, Psystar would be breaking the law, but they weren't before this ruling. They were simply ignoring the EULA.

Read the ruling before you talk nonsense. What they did was _always_ illegal. What a judge says about their actions cannot make them legal or illegal, the judge just makes a public record of the fact that they were _always_ acting illegally, and a record that they cannot ignore. [/QUOTE]

But the main point is still valid. Just like with POWER COMPUTING in the 90's, other companies make similar hardware and charge FAR LESS than Apple. You're all cheering for a monopoly of high prices. Go cheer for MS while you're at it.

You don't have the slightest clue how economy works. I can't be bothered with it, this has been explained and explained and explained and explained, so if you don't get it, that is your fault entirely.

Let me just say that Psystar's prices are lower because their parts are cheap garbage, their build quality is cheap garbage, they didn't put back any reserves for customer service and warranty repairs, they didn't spend any money on unnecessary details like keeping track of their income so they can pay their taxes as required by Florida law, they didn't spend money on developing an operating system for their computers, and they didn't bother actually calculating how much they needed to charge to make a profit from their business, which is why they asked for bankruptcy protection already.

 

[pdjudd]

You are arguing that im a thief because i purchased an OS and installed it on the computer i chose to install it on?

You don’t “Purchase” an OS - you License it. Big difference.

 

[thesheep]

Why did Psystar try this in the first place? My guess is that they did it just because it could be done. Businesses have limited liability, so for the guys behind Psystar, it's not the end of the world. There was a small chance they could have got somewhere for a while with the business, and maybe that was worth all the risk. Or maybe they figure they now have a bit of fame and can move onto something else.

 

[gnasher729]

He is not 'breaking the law by hackintoshing' he is violating the EULA. Big difference.

Not quite. If you are making copies of Apple's software, you must have _something_ that gives you permission to do so, otherwise it is copyright infringement, which is breaking the law. When you violate the EULA, that isn't breaking the law in itself, but as a consequence you lose the permission to make any copies, so you are committing copyright infringement.

If I sold you my bible reading software, and the EULA says you have to go to church every Sunday morning, and you don't, then you can rightfully say you are violating the EULA and not breaking the law, because not going to church is perfectly legal. But this is different, because the copying _is_ breaking the law if there is no permission.

Why did Psystar try this in the first place? My guess is that they did it just because it could be done. Businesses have limited liability, so for the guys behind Psystar, it's not the end of the world. There was a small chance they could have got somewhere for a while with the business, and maybe that was worth all the risk. Or maybe they figure they now have a bit of fame and can move onto something else.

I'm curious how this works out. There is limited liability if you are just too stupid to make money and go bankrupt. The situation may be different if Apple goes after the officers of the company because they _must_ have known that what they did was illegal. Surely you can't start a business stealing cars and selling them and claiming you're fine because it is a business. Where exactly Psystar fits, I don't know, but they might be in trouble.

 

[thatrandomguy]

He is not 'breaking the law by hackintoshing' he is violating the EULA. Big difference.

Read the PDF on Groklaw.

The whole reason Psystar got their rears kicked was because their EULA violations were determined to be infringements on Apple's copyright.

 

[harlinator]

It depends on what you mean.

Apple is a hardware company in the sense that they rely on hardware to be profitable & successful. Additionally, the look/sleekness of the hardware helps to sell the brand image.l

Apple is a software company in the sense that they rely on their software to sell hardware.

Really, Apple relies on the whole user experience. Which works for me in some areas (my iPod) and not in others (computers) for me :|

So your iPod does what it"s supposed to do and your
Mac don't??
Oh, I see why. The iPod has a closed system in it and the Mac doesn't so we can all see where the true problem is... it's the USER!

 

[thatrandomguy]

So your iPod does what it"s supposed to do and your
Mac don't??
Oh, I see why. The iPod has a closed system in it and the Mac doesn't so we can all see where the true problem is... it's the USER!

I don't own a Mac.

The MP3 player is a closed device. I upgrade it every few years. I don't change the battery, or add memory, so I'm fine with the iPod. I enjoy my 2G Nano very much (I'll probably replace it with an iPod Touch soon)

My computer is a different story. I will keep them for 4-5 years, and I frequently upgrade- not just the RAM, I actually have upgraded the CPU in many of my machines. There isn't a midrange (under $2k) upgradeable tower in the Mac lineup. Apple has chosen not to compete in that area, so I build my own Windows PCs.

It's a blessing and a curse- you can still build a really high performing machine, and you have your pick of whatever case/motherboard, etc., and you get a good understanding of what's in your computer and how to repair it. It's price competitive accept in the really low end (under $600), and usually better in reliability. Warranties are longer too (typically 3 years on hard drives & CPUs, and lifetime on RAM).

However, it requires effort on your part (you have to do research on what's good and what's not) and it's not as hands free with a repair. Contacting a manufacturer to RMA a part takes time- you can't just walk in to a store, hand it off, and get it fixed.

Nevertheless, the PCs I've built are the best computers I've ever owned. They run both Windows and Linux extremely stably- I've gone 30 days without rebooting my Vista Ultimate x64 install (patch Tuesday rolled around again, and I decided to reboot to have the updates kick in ).

I have Mac envy occasionally, but hardware is important to me, and since Apple has chosen not to compete in the market segment I want to purchase in, I don't use a Mac or, as a result, OS X (I use all of my OSes within license).

 

[batchtaster]

This thing is not, and has never been, about clones. It is also not within Psystar's rights to find a "cheaper way to sell their software" as one idiot said. That's as logical as it being okay for me to sell the car you have listed on eBay for less money. It's not my car, it's not my right to sell it, and it's certainly not my right to cut the price on it and suck out your profits.

Psystar does not have the right to make decisions about the way Mac OS X is sold or to alter the way it works. If something needs to be changed, eg: if clones are to become legitimate, it can only come from Apple, simply because Macs and Mac OS X belong only to Apple.

I hope Apple sucks all the money out of them. It'll send a good message to anyone else to attempts to co-opt the platform for their own purposes and agenda. Who knows, Hackintosh might be next...

 

[CWallace]

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.

Yes they do, in the personal computer marketplace as a whole. But most everything else in that marketplace is running Windows so it's not directly relevant to people who want to run OS X.

Yes Dell makes a laptop with a quad-core CPU and HP offers a mini-tower with the latest gaming GPU, but that hasn't compelled Apple to offer a quad-core Macbook Pro, a Mac Mini(Tower) nor the latest generation of GPUs. Because Dell and HP run Windows from the factory and to get them to run OS X takes effort and leaves the end-user with no support for any issues that might crop up.

And that is why people hoped Psystar would sell hundreds of thousands of mini-towers a quarter to "prove" to Apple that their claims that there is a market for the product and that they charge way too much for an Apple-branded computer are truthful.

 

[cmaier]

Actually they did NOT make illegal copies, get your facts straight. Each Psystar came with a legal copy of OSX. Until this ruling, they broke no law.

Now a judge has said the EULA is a legal, binding contract and to break it is illegal. So from now on, Psystar would be breaking the law, but they weren't before this ruling. They were simply ignoring the EULA.

But the main point is still valid. Just like with POWER COMPUTING in the 90's, other companies make similar hardware and charge FAR LESS than Apple. You're all cheering for a monopoly of high prices. Go cheer for MS while you're at it.

Apparently each system was images with a copy, not an original disk. Each copy was clearly a copyright violation, which is what the judge said. These were violations before and after the court's ruling.

 

[cmaier]

Federal courts in California are not often overturned in intellectual property cases. Less often than other districts.

If no one has noticed, California is the poster child state for decisions being overturned and specifically, the San Francisco area, so I hardly think any definitive precedent has yet been set at all, well, unless Psystar does not have the money to appeal or at least partially win in Florida or elsewhere, which is probable, unless they have a secret benefactor that we don't yet know about.
Most likely Psystar won't last that long, so we'll probably never get a final determination on this until somebody with deeper pockets challenges Apple's EULA and/or the DMCA law. The later of the 2 I particularly despise, since it's so egregious and anti-consumer. But I don't like Apple's EULA either because it's also anti-consumer.

I just don't believe for a second this case is a slam dunk on all counts in Florida, or in Europe or really anywhere outside of Silicon Valley.

If Apple wins completely on all counts across the board, basically we're all criminals.

I still want that mythical Mac mini-tower, but it's clear Steve Jobs will never let that happen.
If this sets a precedent, who's next, the Hackintosh community?

LTD, is there ever a story where you don't take Apple's side?
Someone in another thread suggested that you were infected by Steve Jobs' notorious Reality Distortion Field. Honestly, I'm starting to think you live in Steve Jobs' pants!

 

[cmaier]

I would say to this, its a slope that has now been iced and the question is not which ones have i lost. Its which ones will i loose if this sets a president.

how far will apple go to identify a hackintosh? how far will they go to prosecute anyone who participates in the development of the 86 community?

I think these are valid questions to be considered going forward..

Intellectual property rights can get ridiculous when pushed too far.

Let loose the president!

Someone who spells this badly and then says "I think ...". lol

 

[gnasher729]

If Apple wins completely on all counts across the board, basically we're all criminals.

I asked you before and I ask you again: What are you ranting on about? Unless you are a Psystar employee and the "we" in "we're all criminals" means you and your colleagues, in which case you obviously know something that we don't.

 

[brockm]

I think this is terribly bad precedent.

As I've gotten older, and more libertarian, I've come to view the concept of intellectual property with more and more suspicion. Especially given the fact that software can now be found it pretty much all hardware.

There's many people here who jump up and down and say: X is Y's product, and Y has the right to dictate what is done with X. And while that seems fair enough, there's plenty of problems with it.

I am a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, and generally hate the government. I'm even against anti-trust legislation. But as I said, intellectual property gives me pause.

The first reason is that it's: first one to the finish line takes all; if two or more people independently invent something--which happens in software ALL THE TIME--the first person to file the patent wins. You can steal from people without even knowing you're doing it. How does that make any sense?

In my concept of theft, someone deprives another of their hard earned property. In the intellectual property world, the concept of theft is weird, vast and pervasive. Rather, the intellectual property owner can deprive others of their hard earned work--like NTP did to Research in Motion in their patent for "wireless email messaging".

This idea that someone "owns" an idea simply because they filed some paperwork first, is clearly a horrible idea to me. And I don't know why we're all so quick to defend it.

You're probably thinking this is off topic, but I say all this to lead up to the point about EULAs. When we start pairing software, covered by EULAs with physical wares like phones, music players, home appliances, and couple that with the anti-circumvension provisions of WIPO and the DMCA, we basically end up in a situation where consumers can no longer really "own" anything.

We buy hardware, and all we get is a provisional and conditional "usage license" to operate the software necessary to make the hardware useful.

For example: even though it's highly unlikely that Apple will go out of business in the future, those iTunes movie [licenses] you may have purchased from the iTunes Music Store are contractually linked to the existence of Apple.

If Apple were to close it's doors tomorrow, it would suddenly become illegal for you to play that Star Trek movie you bought off iTunes anymore, as the contract was between you and Apple and the removal of one party from the contract will bring an end to the validity of your "usage license".

Technically, you wouldn't be able to use your iPhone, either, if this happened since it's usage license is similarly connected to the existence of Apple as a company, and in practice, the iTunes Activation Servers. So if Apple were to go out of business, and you were to hack your phone to activate it, you'd be a criminal.

For whatever perverted reasons, this kind of world seems to make sense to a lot of you. You seem to think that because someone makes something, that they are endowed with infinite rights over it's usage and application. Except of course, this is a *new* concept. And this kind of business practice has never been allowed in other industries, because it violates the basics of the commercial code and the principle of business exchange. But suddenly, with software involved, companies can reach their tentacles right into your home, for things you've spent thousands of dollars on, under the impression that you own them, only to find out that someone else retains the right to control and restrict the use of those goods.

In another time, that would be called bait-and-switch. In the twenty-first century it's called: intellectual property rights.

 

[deus_ex_machina]

I don't agree with the judgement... Apple is all pissed because someone found a cheaper way to sell their software. I kind of wish Apple was like MS (I'm gonna get killed for this one) and would open their software up to other hardware companies and give consumers some more options.

I disagree with the rampant misspelling of the word "judgment"

 

[cmaier]

I
The first reason is that it's: first one to the finish line takes all; if two or more people independently invent something--which happens in software ALL THE TIME--the first person to file the patent wins. You can steal from people without even knowing you're doing it. How does that make any sense?

Actually, in the U.S., the first to INVENT, not the first to file, wins. And you aren't "stealing without even knowing it" - you are INFRINGING without even knowing it. And the damages you pay start accruing from when you have notice of the patent - publication of the patent is constructive notice.

It makes sense. If I'm Cliff's COmputer Company, and there are no patents, all I have to do is wait for someone else to spend lots of effort and money to invent something, and then I can "free ride" and copy them. Pretty soon no one is spending any money on R&D. Particularly in industries where there is no natural barrier to copying.

In my concept of theft, someone deprives another of their hard earned property. In the intellectual property world, the concept of theft is weird, vast and pervasive. Rather, the intellectual property owner can deprive others of their hard earned work--like NTP did to Research in Motion in their patent for "wireless email messaging".

You don't think that inventing something and filing a patent on it is hard work? You think it's hard work to copy something someone else has already invented?

This idea that someone "owns" an idea simply because they filed some paperwork first, is clearly a horrible idea to me. And I don't know why we're all so quick to defend it.

Again, in the U.S., filing paperwork first is immaterial.

You're probably thinking this is off topic, but I say all this to lead up to the point about EULAs. When we start pairing software, covered by EULAs with physical wares like phones, music players, home appliances, and couple that with the anti-circumvension provisions of WIPO and the DMCA, we basically end up in a situation where consumers can no longer really "own" anything.

You never have owned any media beyond the physical medium itself. When you bought a book a hundred years ago, you didn't have the right to make copies and sell them to the public.

We buy hardware, and all we get is a provisional and conditional "usage license" to operate the software necessary to make the hardware useful.

No, you own the hardware. Feel free to install any OS you want on it (as long as the copyright holder for THAT OS allows you to.)

Technically, you wouldn't be able to use your iPhone, either, if this happened since it's usage license is similarly connected to the existence of Apple as a company, and in practice, the iTunes Activation Servers. So if Apple were to go out of business, and you were to hack your phone to activate it, you'd be a criminal.

Not every copyright infringement is "criminal." Furthermore, there are DMCA exceptions for hacking protection measures to achieve functionality.

For whatever perverted reasons, this kind of world seems to make sense to a lot of you. You seem to think that because someone makes something, that they are endowed with infinite rights over it's usage and application.

No. They are entitled to statutorily ENUMERATED rights. More importantly, when someone makes something, no one ELSE has any rights. Why should you have rights to something someone ELSE made? Patents, for example, grant no right to practice. When I invent something, patent law gives me no right to actually do the thing I patented. All it gives me is a right to prevent YOU from doing it. After all, why should YOU get to do something you didn't even invent? Why should you benefit from my hard work and sweat?

Except of course, this is a *new* concept. And this kind of business practice has never been allowed in other industries, because it violates the basics of the commercial code and the principle of business exchange. But suddenly, with software involved, companies can reach their tentacles right into your home, for things you've spent thousands of dollars on, under the impression that you own them, only to find out that someone else retains the right to control and restrict the use of those goods.

In another time, that would be called bait-and-switch. In the twenty-first century it's called: intellectual property rights.

Nonsense. Buy a LP record. You think you had the right to make copies? A book?

 

[*LTD*]

I disagree with the rampant misspelling of the word "judgment"

The English language did not originate in America.

judgement

noun variant spelling of judgment .

judgment |ˈjəjmənt| (also judgement)
noun
1 the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions : an error of judgment | that is not, in my judgment, the end of the matter.
• an opinion or conclusion : they make subjective judgments about children's skills.
• a decision of a court or judge.
• a monetary or other obligation awarded by a court : a lower court decision upholding the $100,000 judgment.
• the document recording this obligation.
• short for Last Judgment .
2 a misfortune or calamity viewed as a divine punishment : the crash had been a judgment on the parents for wickedness.
PHRASES
against one's better judgment contrary to what one believes to be wise or sensible.
pass judgment (of a court or judge) give a decision concerning a defendant or legal matter : he passed judgment on the accused. • criticize or condemn someone from a position of assumed moral superiority.
reserve judgment delay the process of judging or giving one's opinion.
sit in judgment assume the right to judge someone, esp. in a critical manner.

ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French jugement, from juger ‘to judge.’
USAGE In British English, the normal spelling in general contexts is judgement. However, the spelling judgment is conventional in legal contexts, and standard in North American English.

 

[twilson]

There would be no Windows license cost included in the price of the PCs because the OEMs would be installing OSX for you. Or in the case where you buy a Windows PC to put OSX on it, there have been cases where people had the Windows cost refunded to them.

The refund would come at a cost to the OEM, as the OEM licensing terms of Windows require a license to be paid for regardless of installation.

If OSX was to be made available to other companies then surely their offerings would be inferior to Apple's own and Apple have nothing to fear?

The problem is the people that want OS X on generic PCs want it that way because they are too tight to pony up for a Mac. They care about price only, not superiority. So there's the flaw in that argument.

 

[cmaier]

The English language did not originate in America.

True. It was just perfected here

 

[*LTD*]

I asked you before and I ask you again: What are you ranting on about? Unless you are a Psystar employee and the "we" in "we're all criminals" means you and your colleagues, in which case you obviously know something that we don't.

I'd be interested to know what he means as well. He usually goes off into the woods with his posts, mostly about PowerPCs or whatever, but this is an entirely new puzzle.

 

[rdlink]

You are arguing that im a thief because i purchased an OS and installed it on the computer i chose to install it on?

You didn't purchase an OS. You purchased a license. The right to USE that OS, under the terms you agreed to by virtue of accepting the EULA. By established law, the EULA is accepted by you when you engage in the usage of the license. The terms of the Mac OSX EULA state that you will use it only on Apple hardware.

Definition of theft: Criminal act of dishonest assumption of the rights of the true owner of a tangible or intangible property by treating it as one's own, whether or not taking it away with the intent of depriving the true owner of it.

Under that definition (Not mine, but from a Blacks Law dictionary.) yes, you are a thief if you buy the license to use Apple OSX and install it on anything other than Apple hardware. Not sure it can be any clearer than that.

 

[NT1440]

The first reason is that it's: first one to the finish line takes all; if two or more people independently invent something--which happens in software ALL THE TIME--the first person to file the patent wins.

Actually, as far as software goes, you only really infringe if you use the same means to achieve the goal. If you come to the same end result via a different method, you don't (generally) get in trouble.

 

[Scooterman1]

I agree. Apple would greatly suffer if they were to try to make it run on the same hardware platforms that Microsoft runs on. Apple has enough trouble with getting out the bugs to run on their own hardware, and on the iPhone. Imagine if they tried to open to the PC Hardware market. I'm just basing this on the feedback I have read on MacRumors about various things that have problems in OS X.

Interesting Note - Pystar is still IN business. They are still selling and taking orders.

 

[balamw]

Thank you for this. It is something that many don't understand and is worth repeating ad nauseam. Even though in this case it is mainly Copyright and not Patents that are at issue.

They are entitled to statutorily ENUMERATED rights. More importantly, when someone makes something, no one ELSE has any rights. Why should you have rights to something someone ELSE made? Patents, for example, grant no right to practice. When I invent something, patent law gives me no right to actually do the thing I patented. All it gives me is a right to prevent YOU from doing it.

In exchange for me disclosing my idea to the world at large, I get the right to exclude others from the practice (make, use or sale) of said idea for a limited time. (~20 years). After that, I lose my exclusivity and anyone can practice my idea.

Interesting Note - Pystar is still IN business. They are still selling and taking orders.

Gluttons for punishment.

B

 

[cmaier]

Thank you for this. It is something that many don't understand and is worth repeating ad nauseam. Even though in this case it is mainly Copyright and not Patents that are at issue.



In exchange for me disclosing my idea to the world at large, I get the right to exclude others from the practice (make, use or sale) of said idea for a limited time. (~20 years). After that, I lose my exclusivity and anyone can practice my idea.

B

Exactly. I should have mentioned the basic bargain of patent law - you can't have a patent AND keep your invention secret. If Coke had patented its recipe, we'd have a million generic Coke clones by now. The system does make sense, even if implemented badly (too many obvious inventions get through the patent office, though, since the KSR ruling, it's gotten better, and I suspect it will continue to improve, especially if Bilski comes out the way it looks like it's going to come out).

Copyright, on the other hand, gives you an essentially infinite right to prevent others from copying, distributing, performing your works forever. I say "forever" because everytime Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, Congress adds 20 years to the copyright term. That's a system that's pretty broken.

And protecting software via copyright is a system that doesn't work. FUndamentally, software to operate a machine is no different than the cogs and cams that were used in industrial era machines - why is one entitled to copyright (just because it looks like "words?") and the other not?

It's fine to protect source code, but copyright isn't the right mechanism to do so. And it's certainly not the right mechanism to protect binaries.