I meant that as a stalling tactic like they did last time - they cannot go into chapter 11 for another year - that means that they are going to get slapped down. Apple doesnt care about the cash - they want a judgement made without psystar delaying.
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
I meant that as a stalling tactic like they did last time - they cannot go into chapter 11 for another year - that means that they are going to get slapped down. Apple doesnt care about the cash - they want a judgement made without psystar delaying.
This is what pisses me off about Psystar. Because they engaged in blatant copyright violations, they lost, and now we get to hear how it somehow had to do with a EULA rather than blatant copyright violations.
(I love the "basically ruled that the EULA is legal". Often it seems that when a journalist writes that someone "basically" did something, what they mean is they did no such thing.)
Jerry
What happens if?........
So, what happens if Apple loses in Florida although it won summary judgement in California?? Will Psystar be able to continue selling product??
So, what happens if Apple loses in Florida although it won summary judgement in California?? Will Psystar be able to continue selling product??
Wait a second. Can you find where it says that in the actual report?
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf
Not an article about it? I can't. I read through it to check. They don't seem to address the bindability of the EULA, but mention it as one of the facts (Apple has a EULA) in the statement portion, not the analysis. The question addressed here was simply regarding the copyright claims.
From what I can tell the EULA portion remains a point of contention for trial:
So, I think you are mistaken that this particular ruling does anything about the status of the EULA.
arn
I agree. It's fine to steal the Leopard's dinner, just don't publicly slap it's chops to make sure it and everyone noticed.
I know you know it.
I tried to back you up on:
but the quote magically disappeared. Sorry for confusion.
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.
Funny, my MS machines 'just work.' The problem is with you- not the machines. I seriously doubt you work repairing machines. You seem to be one of those kids that need your hand held to use a computer - LOL.
Anyways, on the other hand, my Mac Mini experiences all sorts of prob-
How do you see that happening? All Apple has to do is file this in the case in Florida. This outcome changes things. All the florida case really is is a repeat of the California case with Snow Leopard substituted for Leopard in California. The Florida judge would be very interested in this ruling.
Not if they get an injunction prohibiting them from distributing copyright infringing material or contributing to copyright infringement. Likely to happen given that a judge isnt going to allow copyright infringement to occur after concluding that it happened in the past.
I know you know it.
I tried to back you up on:
but the quote magically disappeared. Sorry for confusion.
Meh. No worries.
Yep, it's very clearly illegal to do so. This ruling affirms the validity of the EULA of OS X, which does completely and entirely back up those two facts.
This is hard to argue, and it has to do with economies of scale.
Software is not free to make. OS X represents a multimillion dollar investment- thousands and thousands of hours paid for hardware to test, coders, usability surveys, etc.
The unique thing about software is that copies of it are, physically, very cheap to make. A boxed copy of Snow Leopard is worth ~$2 in physical materials (tops). Does this mean that Snow Leopard is worth $2 to Apple? Definitely not.
How much that "extra copy" represents is a point of debate that is pretty much impossible to agree on. You provide bandwidth, patches, improvements, etc. to a group of users who did not- from Apple's standpoint- pay fully for the OS. That's not to say that those costs could be less than what they make on a boxed copy of Snow Leopard- just that they are costs that Apple is less reimbursed for.
The bigger threat (this is an opinion) is that the Mac brand is devalued. Mac owners take pride in paying a premium for what they believe to be a premium computer- a combination of hardware and software that is, in their opinion, superior.
Hackintoshes cheapen that image, and the perception of the brand. Since they rely on kernel modifications by a third party, and unsupported hardware, their instability has the potential to hurt the brand (when you see someone posting about an OS X error online, they usually don't volunteer that it is a hackintosh).
Indeed. They represent a problem Apple knows well. If hackintoshing becomes more than a 1-in-50 thing, less people buy Macs (which support the investment in the OS to a greater extent) and more Hackintosh. Apple tried making legal clones- and any Mac (or tech knowledgeable person) knows how badly that wound up for Apple
Apple is rational. They know that they will never kill all piracy. However, you can contain it. Instead of having people selling boxed machines, preconfigured with your OS, people have to go to sketchy sites, download things, modify files, pick the right hardware, etc.- so you limit the impact. And Apple effectively did that by winning this case against Psystar.
Of course not. Not legally, anyways
This is one area that I will continue to disagree with you on, for I am a very technical/definition oriented person. So forgive me here
The two scenarios are:
- He can hackintosh.
Result: He buys a $30 copy of Snow Leopard. Apple gets a profit a little under $30 (minus materials) immediately.. Other support costs exist over time, which reduce this profit by an amount that would be difficult, at best, to calculate. - He cannot hackintosh successfullly, and installs an alternative operating system on hardware from a non-Apple company.
Result: He purchases Windows or downloads Linux/Unix of some form. Apple gets no profit.
In his instance, Apple may have made a profit (net income- assuming that the cost of the physical media, the support costs, and any and all taxes are less than $30). Apple would have made no profit in the other case (in this particular instance).
In my opinion, it's exceedingly unlikely that Apple did not make a profit in this instance. I won't deny the possibility, but at the same time, he does not get any support from Apple, he doesn't get help at the genius bar, etc., so support costs are significantly reduced.
At the same time, I won't deny that it is impossible that Apple is deprived of
profit by some hackintosh sales. I would guess that many people who bought Psystar computers would have purchased Macs if they did not have that alternative. In his particular scenario, this isn't the case.
Forgive me- I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say here
If you're talking about the legality, or this case... nope. We have no relevance on the end result. The EULA is legal, he is breaking copyright law by installing Mac OS on a non-Apple PC, and Apple can push out an update modifies the bootloader to give him the middle finger. (I'm sure Apple would do it metaphorically
)If you're talking about Apple being denied a profit... see above. That's my take on it. In his case, it's exceedingly unlikely Apple was denied a profit. In many others, I'm sure they are.
Absolutely true.
I'm explaining his logic and rationalization on the "Is it right to hackintosh" part. As far as the technical specifics of whether or not Apple is denied a profit- that seems clearer to me. Just because you think something is right does not make it legal, or ethical, to do so.
Your arguments are well-reasoned and well-put. It's nice. Not only because it is thought provoking, but because many arguments on the internet descend into something much more primitive
Except that the judge did, essentially, affirm the EULA. See the section of the order on copyright misuse. The court upheld Apple's right to restrict the license to Apple hardware.
It had much to do with that.The copyright violations are due to the fact that Psystar's copies are in violation of the software license agreement (another way to say EULA). Psystar's copies on the imaging machine and on the non-Apple computers were infringing as a result of the EULA (which forbids such activity). Additionally, due to the EULA, Psystar was found guilty of contributory copyright infringement.
The EULA was also challenged by Psystar- specifically, Psystar challenged the terms pertaining to it only being allowed to run on non-Apple machines as copyright misuse. The court rejected this- Apple can tell you that you can only install it on Apple computers, or even that you can't use Mac OS on a Sunday (I wouldn't expect them to add this, but under this ruling, they legally could
). It'd be a different story if Apple forbid competitors from running on computers running OS X (e.x. "You cannot install Windows or Linux with Mac OS on the computer")There were other aspects unrelated to the EULA- namely, the DMCA violation (breaking encryption to get it to run) was a separate legal issue, as was the trademark issues and injunction for relief.
This ruling was heavily tied to the EULA though.
A bittersweet victory, I guess.
To bad we still don't have the option for a mini tower from Apple.
Stand your Mac Mini on its side. There... my work here is done!
The EULA provision that prevents you from installing OS X on a non-Apple machine was also ruled not to be copyright misuse.
Pystar needs to get what they deserve, it is not there operating system. This hopefully will put an end to them "Right on Apple"
By this I hope the judge serves a Mareva upon the owners of Psystar, and their backers, meaning that they can't flout the law by declaring bankruptcy, and evade justice like they tried to do - their homes, their cars, their bank accounts get frozen, and used to pay down the judgement.
Indeed. Apple won big time there.
Here's what I'm reading from the Groklaw pdf (pertaining to reproductive infringement).
Page 6:
The PDF said:
The distribution copies violate Apple's copyright because the license agreement prohibits distribution or installation on non-Apple computers. The derivative copies (e.x. in RAM) are modified, which is an issue (in violation of the license agreement, Psystar modified both the kernel and the bootloader, and in doing so, the derivative copies are infringing.
The rest is all explained too.
Pages 10, line 17 to 13 line 3 refers to Psystars claims that Apple's user agreement abused it's copyright by restricting the hardware that Mac OS X can be installed upon.
In short the judges ruling is that Apple is within it's legal rights to control the distribution of its own work. By only attempting to control it's own software Apple is not holding a monopoly on the industry as Mac users are free to buy other softwares/OS to use on their machines if they choose to.
Stand your Mac Mini on its side. There... my work here is done!
Wait, before you go, could you install a new GPU in it?
Yeah....
I know you know it.
I tried to back you up on:
but the quote magically disappeared. Sorry for confusion.
FWIW I was not implying that Apple will ever benefit financially from this at all (beyond possibly selling more Macs), but that the owners of Psystar have a lot more to lose if they keep on keeping on after receiving this ruling. It also doesn't tend to make the judge very happy, and right now Psystar needs to stay on the right side of the judge(s) in both CA and FL cases.
I think pdjudd fully understood that I meant it that way too.
Typically in these things the only ones who benefit financially are the outside counsels for either party.
EDIT:
This is exactly why I would be very surprised to see Psystar doing business as usual tomorrow.
B
Groklaw reports on the outcome of the Apple vs. Psystar case filed on Friday. According to the court documents, Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted.Psystar and Apple have been in legal battle after Psystar began selling Mac clones back in April. Psystar provided modified versions of Mac OS X to run on the generic PC hardware. Apple filed suit in July.
Article Link: Apple Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement
YES!!!!!! Another one for Apple!
Secret Benefactors?
Weren't we supposed to find out who was behind Psystar? This very website did mention that we would find out the parties who were funding this venture.
Interesting that that information is not being made available.
Weren't we supposed to find out who was behind Psystar? This very website did mention that we would find out the parties who were funding this venture.
Interesting that that information is not being made available.
Weren't we supposed to find out who was behind Psystar? This very website did mention that we would find out the parties who were funding this venture.
Interesting that that information is not being made available.
First, this is only a motion for summary judgment. They haven't had a trial yet. That stuff may come out at trial. Second, "we" don't necessarily find out anything. You can bet Apple will find out, though.
Weren't we supposed to find out who was behind Psystar? This very website did mention that we would find out the parties who were funding this venture.
Interesting that that information is not being made available.
We'll likely find out when we get to the monetary relief phase (in other words, when Psystar has to pay up, at which time Psystar's financial sources *should* be revealed, even if otherwise immune to disclosure. At least that's how I understand it.)