The last time Apple tried clones it nearly killed the company.
I'm loving all the "apple fans" in here who want to see that happen again.
I'm loving all the "apple fans" in here who want to see that happen again.
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
Anybody can file a suit. Their lawyers are probably working pro bono hoping for a settlement. Its very common for lawyers to take on cases no-charge.
Another uneducated comment... Yeah, it's pretty darn greedy of a company to hold all of the risk for developing and producing a product and set terms on its licensing and not be happy when some pathetic company comes along and tries to make a buck for nothing. Who's greedy again!?
Go design, develop and build a hardware and software solution in your garage. Then, as soon as it is available, we'll all grab the software portion and cannibalize your sales and product image with cheap hardware and crappy support.
Any software / hardware appliance vendor in the world will tell you that Apple is in the right.
Tell me if you think it will be okay for you to go snag Cisco's IOS (without a license to do so from Cisco) and sell it on your own cheap hardware. We'll see how long it takes before Cisco knocks you down like a bowling pin.
I developed and own a very popular information security application, and if I decided that come Monday morning it would no longer be allowed to be downloaded and installed on anything but my own hardware platform, that is 100% my right as the creator and owner of that software. Tell me how I don't have that right? Explain to me how somewhere along the line, I have lost the right to control how my software is licensed and used? The truth is, you can't. All you can do is muddy the water with senseless statements about how you bought it and you can do anything you want with it, when in fact you didn't buy 'it', you bought a license to it.
Of course, I don't expect to change the minds of those who just don't get it. Dumb isn't remedied in an Internet forum.
Last I checked, Apple isn't the only vendor out there. Have a problem, do us all a favor and go get yourself a Dell.
Anyone with any intelligence saw this result coming. It has nothing to do with greed or Apple's army of attorneys -- if anything Apple has a duty to their shareholders to defend their product and prevent this kind of crap from destroying their brand.
:wq!
You really think these lawyers were working pro-Bono?????
The chances of Psystar winning were a long shot, outside of someone in their family, most lawyers would think twice about such a long shot.
You actually believe that they did it pro-bono?
That wouldn't be good PR for Apple, but I too am afraid that this will only be the first step.
What they could do however that would play better is send all of these folks an offer to trade in their Psystar for a real Mac at a slight discount. i.e. trade in your Psystar for a mini for $500.
B
I wouldn't worry too much about all the anti-Apple sentiment here. It's just another indication that MacRumors has been taken over by hackintosh freaks.
(PC owner here, feel free to flay me)
This case could have a bad impact on US law. I'm kind of torn. On one hand, it gives a LOT of power to non-negotiable contracts like EULAs (when every OS has a "you can't sue us" clause, what do you do?). On the other hand, Psystar profited heavily off of the work of the Hackintosh community and Apple (the machines supporting the OS cost).
Forgetting my personal opinion, here's the summary version:
(Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, but I have read up a bit. Not legal advice, go to an attorney if you want legal advice, etc.)
So, Apple wins, Psystar loses, and there's still a bunch of court time to go.
This case could have a bad impact on US law. I'm kind of torn. On one hand, it gives a LOT of power to non-negotiable contracts like EULAs (when every OS has a "you can't sue us" clause, what do you do?). On the other hand, Psystar profited heavily off of the work of the Hackintosh community and Apple (the machines supporting the OS cost).
Forgetting my personal opinion, here's the summary version:
(Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, but I have read up a bit. Not legal advice, go to an attorney if you want legal advice, etc.)
- The court held that Apple had valid copyrights on OS X and a valid software license agreement. Psystar owners, by right of the contract (EULA), were precluded from running Mac OS in the first place.
- So, that said, Apple alleged Psystar violated three copyrights that Apple had: Reproduction, distribution, and derivative.
- The reproduction copyright pertained to Psystar's use of a stored master copy used to image (copy the same drive image to multiple drives- every OEM does it) their computers with OS X. Psystar tried to argue under two sections of US Law (117 and 107) that this copy was fair use. However, Psystar poorly defended this, and it has been long held that this defense is poor. Just because the master copy made it easier for them to put the licensed copies (we're forgetting the legal status of Psystar vs. the license here, they did violate it) on machines doesn't make the reproduction violation nonexistent.
- The distribution right has to do with Psystar selling Mac OS to their customers. Psystar used Fair Use (sec. 109) to try to defend this. However, it only applies to the owner of a copy, not a licensee.
If you assume that Psystar was an owner (more rights), the copy on the imaging station and the copy made on the hard drive of each computer sold is still not allowable under copyright.
Even though Psystar bought - and included - a DVD with each computer sold, that doesn't change the fact that the copy on the imaging station and the copy made on each computer are violating Apple's copyright.
- Apple has the right to derivative works (e.x. those made in RAM). Psystar argued that they didn't, but they very obviously did (in order to run on a non-Mac computer, you have to modify the bootloader, remove kernel extensions, and add kernel extensions). Psystar said they didn't modify anything- which is laughable in light of the modifications they made.
- Contributory infringement was an obvious loss. Psystar said no, but they did - MGM v Grokster as precedent.
- Psystar argued that Apple engaged in copyright misuse- that trying to prohibit owners of the Mac OS X software from running it on non-Mac machines. Notably, Apple does not have to be a monopoly to be found guilty of this.
However, the court found in favor of Apple- Apple's requirement on its own software is fine. If Apple put in a clause saying "You can't run Windows or Linux on any Mac machine or any computer with Mac OS", THAT would be copyright misuse. There are other ways in which Apple could have misused copyright - the court did not find any.
- Apple argued that Psystar violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by circumventing technological protections within Mac OS X in violation of said law. Psystar argued that such circumvention info was public knowledge, and as a result, it wasn't infringing. The court rejected this for obvious reasons.
Psystar's secondary defense was that the protection was weak - the technological equivalent of saying "My neighbor has a crappy lock, so it's OK to break it and go into his house!". You can guess what the court thought of that
- Psystar also claimed that their use of Apple's trademarks and trade dress were nominative fair use, but provided no evidence of this, and as the defendant, they have the burden of proof. Denied.
- Psystar tried to get relief on motions Apple hasn't made yet. Obviously, they didn't get it.
So, Apple wins, Psystar loses, and there's still a bunch of court time to go.
Most, but not all of them. Heck, some law firms would take on the case for the notoriety that would give them. Not to mention that some lawyers believe, no matter how bad a case is, that everybody has the right to a legal defense. You would be surprised at some of the cases lawyers have defended.
My friend buys a lot of Apple equipment (iPods, Macs, etc.), and he just recently bought a Dell Mini 10v. He bought a copy of Snow Leopard and Hackintoshed.
Why? Because he loved the OS so much, and Apple sells no alternative to it. Now, speaking in terms of the license agreement, that's obviously wrong. However, he wanted a netbook- a market Apple has chosen not to engage in. He would have gone with Windows or Linux instead if he couldn't hackintosh- instead, he's using- and learning how to develop- on a Mac. Was Apple really deprived here?
Apple doesn't sell a midrange upgradeable PC (a midtower, where anything can be modified), nor do they cater to the netbook segment. These are decisions Apple has made- and, judging by their balance sheets, they are decisions that are working.
Despite the legality, I can easily understand why one would hackintosh, and why many are frustrated by this ruling.
I'm sure that at the right scale even these EULAs are negotiable, they just aren't negotiable at the individual license level. If someone wanted 1,000,000 licenses of OS X they could probably negotiate both special prices and license terms.
I'm sure the lawyers would love to have each EULA individually negotiated, but you'd kiss goodbye to cheap software if nothing else by the lawyer's fees!
B
Hear, hear!
It's been tolerated to a point at which many of those with valid input have left.
It can be argued that my input is worthless, but I've cut back on how much I monitor MacRumors for just this reason...
Forums come, forums go. This one is approaching the "go" phase.
Not likely. Psystar sold Mac OS and told people "It's legal, go ahead, do it!".
Not to mention the bad PR, the cost of all the court cases...it would not be feasible.
Apple will never (well, never say never- but I'm extremely doubtful) the hackintosh community. Psystar enabled more people than just those with the know-how to get a Mac cheaply.
Apple made an example of Psystar- it'll be a strong deterrent and a message to stop to people selling Hackintoshes. As a result, you're still going to have hackintoshes, but many users who would have bought something cheaper from a third party will shrug their shoulders and buy Apple.
I just hate it when someone tries to make money off someone else's invention. Apple spent millions developing OS X, so why should Psystar just be entitled to help themselves to it? Allowing those Psystar buffoons to continue would be like allowing Gucci, Dolce Gabbana, Dior fakes to be sold on the internet, watering down Apple's brand equity. For most people being able to afford a genuine Mac just means spending less elsewhere on unnecessary things. Same thing goes for Microsoft - I'm sick and tired of them making money on copying Apple's operating system features - why can't they invent their own?
There are plenty of voids in Apple's line up where a Hackintosh makes sense. The netbook is one, the xMac is another. I am tempted to build an i5 based xMac myself.
Individual acts of EULA violation are one thing, but making a business of it is just crazy. It's kind of like the difference between an individual speeding on the freeway and making speeding the foundation of your business plan (like a pizza place with a 15 minute delivery guarantee and a 30 mile delivery radius.).
B
It's tough to say. On one hand, a company can shackle you down and strip you of all your rights for software you need to use.
The most recent individual EULA "win" (pro-consumer) involved AutoDesk, IIRC.
Agreed. Apple deserved- and was all but guaranteed- to slam dunk this case. Psystar had a terrible legal defense.
YES! Apple was deprived of a hardware purchase. There is no argument here.
I am rather getting sick and tired of this.
I have a buddy of mine who pirates DVD's from Netflix, and his lame rationalization is that these are the types of movies he would never buy, so it's okay if he copies it. Ultimately he believes that because he would never, ever spend $15 or $19 on the DVD, then the movie industry is not losing out on anything.
It's total crap.
It's a packaged deal, and they've figured out a way to get around spending money on half of the package, which takes the cash from Apple and gives it to the hardware vendors he chose.
If the vendors of his hardware profited from him not buying the Apple computer, then tell me again how Apple was _not_ deprived of any sales?
Apple stated that they will not enter the ultra-low end PC market, and why should they. It's a crowded market, with little profit potential - for those who want a cheap, feature limited Mac, they've got the iPhone, or iPod Touch.
Oh great, someone mad atsince they don't open their software to other manufactures. Apple is not a software only company like MS, they build the hardware and bundle the software. A complete ecosystem. If you want them to be like MS, then I'm sure we all can't wait to have issues with all the crap variations of hardware out in the Windows market that MS tries to support.
MS even acknowledges that Apple doesn't sell software, they sell the whole experience. If you want them to be like MS to have an MS experience then stick with Windows. Enjoy the issues.
Also, look at the history of the Mac Clones that Apple ventured into at one point. Yea, that turned out just great.
Do you really want them to go the MS route? If you do, then we'll all have crapware installed on new machines.
I support MS crap all day long at work, when I come home I just want my machine to work. Thank you MS for your shoddy programming, it keeps me employed.
I never seen a driver written by MS. Hardware manufacturers are required to support their hardware not MS. So if you have "issues" then it sounds like you an "issue" with the hardware manufacture not MS. As far as "crap variations of hardware" goes last time I checked did Apple more to same hardware?
Psystar did buy boxed copies of Mac OS for each computer they sold. That said, Apple doesn't profit off of the boxed copies, they profit on the combination, and Psystar grossly violated their copyright. Psystar didn't claim that they were selling Apple computers- just computers running Mac OS. There's no easy real life analogy.
A whole different story here. Apple takes risk (I haven't met a Mac user who defends the "hockey puck" mouse
), but often introduces new features/usability that users like. Microsoft does surveys, sees what people like, and implements it.Anyhow, like it or not, Microsoft copying aspects of OS X is not illegal.
I do know that Psystars debtors can sue to get their investments back as a result of Chapter 11 emergence. But Apple only suggested other parties involvement - no proof has ever been offered to suggest that there is anybody else behind Psystar.
I am asking if YOU believe these particular lawyers agreed to work for Psystar pro-bono.
We all know that law firms do that from time to time, but that is theory.
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE TO THE BOTTOM OF YOUR HEART THAT THE LAWYERS USED BY PSYSTAR WERE PRO-BONO?