Apple Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement

[thatrandomguy]

YES! Apple was deprived of a hardware purchase. There is no argument here.

I am rather getting sick and tired of this.

So my friend, if he could not have hackintoshed...

• Would still had bought a netbook from a third party (since Apple does not make one) as another computer, in addition to the 2 iMacs and Mac Mini he owns.
• Would have not purchased a retail boxed copy of Mac OS, but instead would have purchased Windows 7 or installed one of many free operating systems

...and that deprives Apple of a sale? I'm not out here to pretend that every hackintosh user would use something different if hackintoshes did not exist, but it's just as silly to claim the inverse. Especially when said computer has no Apple alternative.

 

[pmjoe]

Further details:

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/23047/
[...]
"Judge Alsup basically ruled that the OS X End User License Agreement (EULA), which prohibits the installation of the software on non-Apple hardware, is legal and means exactly what it says.

That's right, bitches, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."

I'd be hesitant in using Business Week magazine for legal advice. I read the ruling and while the judge made a statement about Apple's EULA, the actual legal findings in the decision seemed to be mainly grounded in the fact that Psystar was producing and providing modified versions of OS X. In that sense copyright law is pretty clear. Once the judge established that, everything else fell out from that. Psystar did not have the right to produce modified copies. IMHO, the judge punted with respect to EULA.

Also the judge is flat out wrong when he says Apple sells an "upgrade" DVD for OS X, but that didn't play a factor in the ruling either.

 

[pdjudd]

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE TO THE BOTTOM OF YOUR HEART THAT THE LAWYERS USED BY PSYSTAR WERE PRO-BONO?

Me personally? Why not. They had little chance of getting anything besides notoriety. And so far their legal strategy thus far was never based on any real legal effort on their behalf. It seems like they were just doing the bare minimum to get a settlement. I believe they took on the case no cash up front, large chunk of whatever settlement Apple offered to go away. They gambled. I have no problem believing the firm could afford this. It was advertising all the way...

 

[AppleMojo]

So my friend, if he could not have hackintoshed...

• Would still had bought a netbook from a third party (since Apple does not make one) as another computer, in addition to the 2 iMacs and Mac Mini he owns.
• Would have not purchased a retail boxed copy of Mac OS, but instead would have purchased Windows 7 or installed one of many free operating systems

...and that deprives Apple of a sale? I'm not out here to pretend that every hackintosh user would use something different if hackintoshes did not exist, but it's just as silly to claim the inverse. Especially when said computer has no Apple alternative.

I'm not your friend.

Simple facts here. Try and keep up.

If you want to run OS X, Apple requires you to purchase a Mac. So if you run OS X with anything other than a Mac, you have deprived Apple of that profit.

Just because Apple doesn't make something you want, doesn't mean you aren't depriving them.

Again, I will repeat and hope it sticks.

a) If you like OS X that much, you will buy a Mac.
b) If your like of OS X doesn't surpass your cheapness or income level, then you buy something else or apparently steal it and rationalize how there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[EagerDragon]

Me personally? Why not. They had little chance of getting anything besides notoriety. And so far their legal strategy thus far was never based on any real legal effort on their behalf. It seems like they were just doing the bare minimum to get a settlement. I believe they took on the case no cash up front, large chunk of whatever settlement Apple offered to go away. They gambled. I have no problem believing the firm could afford this. It was advertising all the way...

Thanks, yes I was asking your opinion.

I on the other hand believe that they had financial backers hiding, at at least once Apple made the same point. I like to know for sure which happend, backers or pro-bono or no cash up front.

Perhasp we will learn the truth in the months to come.

 

[mcmillasc]

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.

Despite the legality, I can easily understand why one would hackintosh, and why many are frustrated by this ruling.

The difference is Psystar makes business model out of willful reckless wholesale copyright infringement. When you do it privately on your own the argument of fair use for compatibility can be used - but too bad so sad if something goes wrong - you're on your own to fix the problem, don't expect Apple to help you.

 

[IntelliUser]

Both parties got what they deserved.

 

[gnasher729]

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?

Their first set of lawyers seems to have worked without pay, but not voluntarily. In the Chapter 11 papers they were shown to be owed about $88,000. The second law company run by Kiwi Camara (the guy who increased a client's fine for copying 24 songs from $220,000 to $1,920,000), only charges when they win. So either they had very poor judgement, or they were willing to work without pay.

 

[IndyGopher]

re: Using the list of customers to go after infringers (users of Psystar computers) Wouldn't that be taking it too far though?

It would be going too far if they wanted to prosecute them... they could win Brownie points and maybe some customers if they offered those people a discount to go legit, and buy real Macs. Perhaps 75% or so of what they paid for their Psystar applied to a Mac Pro. Everyone wins. Apple makes great margin on the pros, so less impact on the bottom line, the customers get a MUCH better computer, and everyone sees that Apple is not anti-consumer, just anti-DB companies like Psystar.

BTW, for those that think the type of computers Psystar is/was selling are comparable to Mac Pros... you really need to spend some quality time with a real Mac Pro. The Xeon processors really do slap the stink off the Core2 CPUs. When I moved to the Mac Pro from my Core2 Duo iMac, I was flabbergasted by how much faster the Pro was. I still use an iMac at work, and it keeps me appreciating my Pro at home.

 

[MacDSmith2]

Been there: done that. Apple would go under in a relatively short time with A: complete decimation of their pricier hardware sales (which is what actually makes them money), and B: nowhere near enough royalties from any Mac OS X licensing scheme with the market share that they have. Think about it.

I agree completely. The Apple Business model is NOT like Microsoft, which makes money by controlling the OEM hardware market and forcing PC makers to pay them for putting Windows on all their machines. Apple's model is selling retail to consumers. There is no way they can survive by either selling only the OS like Microsoft does OR only hardware like PC makers do. Their business model is selling an INTEGRATED hardware/software solution and doing it well. In order to be successful in that business model, they HAVE to control both the OS and the hardware from copy cats.

 

[balamw]

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.

I didn't say it made sense for Apple, but a Hackintosh is another option for those whose needs and desires are not met by Apple.

Just like speeding on the highway or jaywalking is a choice many make, a Hackintosh remains a choice that may make sense for the user in some circumstances.

B

 

[gnasher729]

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.

1. Anybody buying a Psystar computer knew what they were getting, and that it wasn't legal. If you buy something that fell off the back of a lorry, it won't help you at all if the seller told you it's legal.

2. There wouldn't be much cost of court cases. The RIAA has shown that you can do this very cheaply. Threaten them, offer a settlement, don't let it go to court. And unlike the RIAA cases, Psystar would likely not have sold, received money from, and delivered computers to children, computer illiterates and dead people, so much less bad publicity.

3. The Hackintosh community is different because Apple doesn't know who these people are.

4. What happened to Psystar is not a deterrent. Look at the BlueHippo scam: As long as someone thinks they can ripoff people and run with the money before the **** hits the fan, they will. What will stop this is people knowing that the risk isn't worth it.

Now I'm not saying that _is_ what Apple would do, but it looks like a plan to me.

 

[thatrandomguy]

The difference is Psystar makes business model out of willful reckless wholesale copyright infringement. When you do it privately on your own the argument of fair use for compatibility can be used - but too bad so sad if something goes wrong - you're on your own to fix the problem, don't expect Apple to help you.

Oh, I don't debate that at all- a few posts earlier, I mentioned that Psystar profited off of the work of Apple & the OSx86 devs in blatant violation of the law.

My friend has the same philosophy. When 10.6.2 broke Atom support, he shrugged his shoulders and said "Their OS, their rules. I'll have to wait for a workaround and deal with it."

I'm not your friend.

Sorry for the presumptive wording, AppleMojo.

Simple facts here. Try and keep up.

I will be more than happy to read your statements of fact and opinion, just as you have read mine.

If you want to run OS X, Apple requires you to purchase a Mac.

Legally, yes. I make no debate of that.

So if you run OS X with anything other than a Mac, you have deprived Apple of that profit.

.

This is a really difficult point to argue, since there isn't a black or white area.

I would be (in my opinion), absolutely insane to try to argue that Apple has not been deprived of profit by hackintoshing. I am sure that there are many Hackintosh owners who would have bought a machine from Apple if they did not have the option of a Hackintosh.

However, I think the opposite is also true. I believe that there are Mac owners- like my friend- who would have picked an alternative operating system if they could not hackintosh. My friend purchased a boxed copy of Snow Leopard.

Just because Apple doesn't make something you want, doesn't mean you aren't depriving them.

I agree with that statement, but I also believe that it also doesn't mean that you are. My friend dual boots his hackintosh with Windows 7 Professional, and at one point, he almost gave up on the OS X install as a result of difficulties with the bootloader. He almost chose not to run OS X as his primary OS on one of his machines. He decided to give it a final try 3 after 3 days of running Windows (which he liked compared to earlier releases, but he loved OS X)- if it didn't work, he would give it up.

Again, I will repeat and hope it sticks.

I have read your opinions on the matter and respect them. I respectfully disagree in some areas, but respect that you have as much of a right to your opinion as I do to mine. Especially since I'm on a Mac site

a) If you like OS X that much, you will buy a Mac.

And he does own several. But the only reason he hackintoshed is because Apple offered no alternative. He almost gave up running OS X as his primary OS on all his computers because he wanted a netbook - a market Apple has chosen not to compete in.

Undoubtedly, it is a violation of Apple's copyright. I - and he - have no qualms admitting that. However, we would both argue that it did not deprive Apple of a sale.

b) If your like of OS X doesn't surpass your cheapness or income level, then you buy something else or apparently steal it and rationalize how there is nothing wrong with it.

You are misinterpreting what I said.

I stated that I understood why hackintosh owners were upset, as well as why my friend chose to hackintosh. I did not say that what he did was right, or legal. I just said I understood why he did it (I did pose the open ended question of "is that wrong", but I never stated it was legal or ethical).

I did state that I believe that he did not deprive Apple of a sale. This is my belief, based on the circumstances.

Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion and respond with yours in turn.

 

[Rodus]

Apple probably couldn't give 2 hoots about Psystar per se, the problem is when the big boys (Dell, HP et all) see that this company has been getting away with selling hackintoshes and decide to do it as well. Suddenly Apple would be up against companies who could afford excellent legal teams and keep the case tied up for ages whilst selling OS X installed on their PC's. Better to nip it in the bud early and get it declared illegal.

 

[cnorth3]

Apple can suck it. Greed, greed, greed.

Do you understand that, if Apple hadn't defended their copyright, they might have lost their IP rights altogether? No, of course you don't.

 

[Amdahl]

That's right, bitches, Apple's EULA is legal. It "means exactly what it says."

No, the ruling was not on the EULA. The court ruled that because Psystar did not have permission to make the copies used on the master imaging station, the first-sale doctrine did not apply. This leaves open the Rebel-EFI method, where each installation happens manually.

 

[pdjudd]

No, the ruling was not on the EULA. The court ruled that because Psystar did not have permission to make the copies used on the master imaging station, the first-sale doctrine did not apply. This leaves open the Rebel-EFI method, where each installation happens manually.

I don’t think so. The court also said that Psystar can’t contribute to copyright infringement - Rebel EFI almost certainly does that.

 

[thatrandomguy]

1. Anybody buying a Psystar computer knew what they were getting, and that it wasn't legal. If you buy something that fell off the back of a lorry, it won't help you at all if the seller told you it's legal.

It depends on the law of the region, but if the customer does not have knowledge (or a reasonable suspicion) that goods are unauthorized or purloined, you can't charge them with theft.

Apple would face an uphill battle in trying to prove that every customer knew this or had a reasonable belief. Lawyers get expensive quickly, and Apple would have a burden of proof.

There wouldn't be much cost of court cases. The RIAA has shown that you can do this very cheaply. Threaten them, offer a settlement, don't let it go to court. And unlike the RIAA cases, Psystar would likely not have sold, received money from, and delivered computers to children, computer illiterates and dead people, so much less bad publicity.

Fair point.

There is nothing stopping Apple from doing so. However, it's arguable over whether or not the bad publicity would still not be substantial.

Additionally, the RIAA has spent considerable amounts of money publicizing that music downloading is illegal- Apple has barely mentioned hackintoshes at all (why give them publicity). Many of Psystar's buyers did know what they were doing. Yet many likely hold a belief that there was a more affordable alternative to a Mac.

It'd be an uphill battle, and confused users would be upset that they were being sued because a company told them what they were doing is legal. Apple would have a burden of proof too.

Microsoft has never sued a user who bought pirated Windows. Like Apple, they have sued many who have sold it.

3. The Hackintosh community is different because Apple doesn't know who these people are.

And Apple doesn't know who Psystar's customers are yet. They'd have to convince a judge that a significant portion - in all likelihood, more than a majority - knew what they were doing was illegal.

Many companies have chosen not to go after users. Usenet.com, a Usenet provider who advertised their Newsgroup service for warez, lost a court case a couple months ago to the RIAA. While many of their users likely knew that their downloads were not legal, the RIAA has not made any sort of injunction or other movement to try to get the personal information of Usenet.com's users.

4. What happened to Psystar is not a deterrent. Look at the BlueHippo scam: As long as someone thinks they can ripoff people and run with the money before the **** hits the fan, they will. What will stop this is people knowing that the risk isn't worth it.

Oh, I never said that I expected Hackintoshing for profit to die. I just said that Apple sent a strong message. No company (in its right mind) will be as brazen as Psystar. Especially with the precedent.

Now I'm not saying that _is_ what Apple would do, but it looks like a plan to me.

It's possible, but in my opinion, unlikely.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

The question is: If his copying was not possible, if he only had the choice between paying $15 to $19 per DVD or not having it, would he then buy a few, or would he buy nothing? And of course you can turn his argument around: Since he wouldn't buy a DVD for $15, then surely by not copying _he_ isn't losing out on anything?

Another argument: If DVDs are too expensive, he could buy used DVDs for say $5. Then other people would buy more DVDs for $15, because they could later sell them for some money when they don't like them anymore. So by not buying used DVDs he _is_ depriving the movie industry.

 

[*LTD*]

No, the ruling was not on the EULA.

It most certainly was.

 

[cmaier]

Awesome. I was so tired of people on this board who don't understand copyright law and who don't understand that you can own the disk but not own the contents claiming the EULA was invalid.

Now the question is what about Europe.

 

[maxijazz]

And Psystar doesn’t have the luxury of Chapter 11 this time.

If you have $5 in your pocket it really doesn't matter if you charged $10k or $100k. So apple won't benefit from any real recovery....

 

[AppleMojo]

This is a really difficult point to argue, since there isn't a black or white area.

I would be (in my opinion), absolutely insane to try to argue that Apple has not been deprived of profit by hackintoshing. I am sure that there are many Hackintosh owners who would have bought a machine from Apple if they did not have the option of a Hackintosh.

However, I think the opposite is also true. I believe that there are Mac owners- like my friend- who would have picked an alternative operating system if they could not hackintosh. My friend purchased a boxed copy of Snow Leopard.

...

I did state that I believe that he did not deprive Apple of a sale. This is my belief, based on the circumstances.

Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion and respond with yours in turn.

A lot of people seem to be confused and under the impression that it is okay to separate the hardware and the Apple operating system. If they assume this, it makes their arguments so much easier to win. But it is completely false.

Fact, they are sold as a solution (hardware + operating system).
Fact, the boxed version of the OS is for existing users of OS X (Apple has said this numerous times).

When you come and take 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 of the deal and give money to another vendor for the other 1/2, 2/3 or 3/4 -- then you are in fact hurting Apple.

It doesn't matter that your friend has 1 or 50 Mac's that are all legal.

Just because they don't offer a netbook like he wanted, doesn't mean he can do it.

It doesn't matter that he would have left Apple all together, we are not talking total dollars lost or saved, we are talking about whether what he did deprived Apple of profit. Yes, it did. Simple.

I understand he's your friend and you may be caught up in the "circumstances", but those have absolutely no relevance on the end result.

The final and end result; he is using OS X on hardware that was not purchased along with the operating system.

If this caused him to drop OS X completely, this is fine and normal. But it isn't rationalization nor reasoning to do what he did.

And I to appreciate your insight. Maybe some good comes from it when people can see the intimate details of both sides of the argument.

 

[ronldjnvtx]

Pystar

Pystar needs to get what they deserve, it is not there operating system. This hopefully will put an end to them "Right on Apple"

 

[AppleMojo]

The question is: If his copying was not possible, if he only had the choice between paying $15 to $19 per DVD or not having it, would he then buy a few, or would he buy nothing? And of course you can turn his argument around: Since he wouldn't buy a DVD for $15, then surely by not copying _he_ isn't losing out on anything?

Another argument: If DVDs are too expensive, he could buy used DVDs for say $5. Then other people would buy more DVDs for $15, because they could later sell them for some money when they don't like them anymore. So by not buying used DVDs he _is_ depriving the movie industry.

Those are excellent points.

I didn't think of either of those when we were discussing it.

Thanks!