Apple Wins Judgement Against Psystar for Mac OS X Copyright Infringement

[Parky]

Apple make 90% of their profit from Hardware and 10% from Software.

This clearly makes them a Hardware company first and a software company second.

IF OS X was available to be installed on ANY hardware then Apple would lose Billions in Hardware sales and would not get much back in the added Software sales.

Therefore it MAKES NO FINANCIAL SENSE to sell OS X for non Apple Hardware - simple.

 

[Casiotone]

No. Its not the same. The Cell cpu is physically not capable of running the binaries on the Forza 3 game disc. Nor is the Xeon (or is it Xenon, i always get them confused) in the 360 capable of running the KZ2 binaries.
However, my Q8400 in my pc is perfectly capable of running OSX. The only limitations are synthetic. There are no synthetic limitations keeping KZ2 from running on a 360, its that the cpu is not going to know what to do with the instructions.

Why do you think that the PS3 and 360 are not hardware-compatible? Because Microsoft and Sony purposely made them so by choosing non-standard and "physically incompatible" CPUs. These are still "synthetic" or artificial limitations, even if they are at the hardware level. MS and Sony don't have to sue other companies trying to make compatible game consoles because they put some much deeper limitations that prevent that from happening.

So what you're saying is that if Apple was to switch to a special custom CPU that only them can buy and that is hardware incompatible with everything else, everything would be ok?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Why do you think that the PS3 and 360 are not hardware-compatible? Because Microsoft and Sony purposely made them so by choosing non-standard and "physically incompatible" CPUs. These are still "synthetic" or artificial limitations, even if they are at the hardware level. MS and Sony don't have to sue other companies trying to make compatible game consoles because they put some much deeper limitations that prevent that from happening.

So what you're saying is that if Apple was to switch to a special custom CPU that only them can buy and that is hardware incompatible with everything else, everything would be ok?

Umm, thats far from the truth. The Cell and the Xenon CPU are not binary compatible. The Cell isn't true X68 architecture.

 

[inkswamp]

Psystar was found guilty of copyright violations for the copies of OS X they pre-installed on the HDD of the computers they sold. Apparently they all originated from a single DVD.

How is this clearly not piracy?

B

*brain cramp*

Let's review. Piracy is when software is stolen, that is, distributed without being paid for. The software Psystar was distributing was paid for by the customer, i.e., not piracy.

 

[inkswamp]

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

Arn, I hope you're right in that interpretation but that's not how I'm reading it. The section where they reference the EULA seems to imply it's a binding contract. I'm not a legal scholar by any stretch so I accept that I may be way off base on that. I hope I am. Regardless of the company in question, I find the idea of any court ruling that implies or confirms the EULA as a legitimate contract to be a little troubling.

 

[capvideo]

Yeah, but you are intentionally ignoring the dicta on 3 and ignoring the statement of law.

There is no section called "Statement of Law". There is a "Statement" that describes what each side has done. What the court decided is under the "Conclusion" section, and why it decided that way is under the "Analysis".

Dicta is not generally binding, and I don't see it in this case. This is a summary judgement ruling, and the judge can't take it beyond that. Quote the text you believe does, if you disagree.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Cue the rebuttal that “Apple’s EUAL wouldn’t hold up in the EU” and “EUAL’s are invalid in Germany” in 3, 2, 1.....

Actually it WOULD hold up in germany as they are bound by the EUCD (EU Copyright Directive) which is the EU equivalent of the DMCA.

 

[arjaosx]

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.

That is not the case here. Consumers have choice, that is to buy a cheaper computer but runs windows or buy a more expensive mac.

The other thing is Psystar is trying to profit from someone else's work. If they wanted something like OS X they are free to develop something like OSX but not the software itself.

Lastly, some people like myself are happy that Apple won not because we wanted the big boys win. Letting Psystar win would mean the end of IP because essentially it will legalise ripping off someone else's hardwork.

That is the value of this case in the end its good for those who create that they will be protected from pirates and shameless rip offs.

 

[alphaod]

I think it can be looked at in two ways here:
1) Pystar out of selling computers with a stolen OS means we as Apple buyers will be getting value out of our purchases. We pay more because we get the support from the legitimate company making a good product.
2) No more competition for Apple on the OS X front. Hopefully Apple doesn't raise their prices.

 

[cjmillsnun]

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.

Erm no he isn't.

Every retail OS X DVD is an upgrade.

If you buy a Mac, it has a Mac OS licence. The fact that the DVD uses an honour based system rather than checking for a previous version makes no difference, it's an upgrade DVD

 

[Casiotone]

Umm, thats far from the truth. The Cell and the Xenon CPU are not binary compatible. The Cell isn't true X68 architecture.

Uh? That's exactly what I'm saying. MS and Sony have chosen CPUs that are not binary compatible with each other, and not binary compatible with the x86 platform either, so that it would be extremely hard to clone the consoles and make their OS/games run on other machines.

 

[arjaosx]

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.

Same thing I am thinking...Psystar's lawyer was on who had a previous success against Apple and apparently his ego got to his head and tried to back this little crook of a company to try its luck on Apple again hoping to win and get some settlement.

Talk about pushing your luck too far.

 

[HyperZboy]

This was not unexpected nor shocking.

California is the poster child for cases that get overturned on appeal so I'm not surprised at all and I doubt Psystar is either.

This is the part that is most telling... "Apple's motion for summary judgment on copyright infringement and DMCA violation is granted. Apple prevailed also on its motion to seal."

Motion to seal? Wow, just sweep it under the rug Apple and pretend it never happened?

If this case ever gets out of Silicon Valley, Apple won't win this way, trust me and it won't go down that way in Florida either.

Apple's goal from the beginning was not to try the case and have their EULA examined or challenged in an actual trial and they got that in this judgement, but they will not get that same judgement outside of Silicon Valley nor in Florida. Mark my words.

However, its likely that Psystar will not have the financial resources to fight this for long.

I'm not necessarily against Apple and I do think Psystar has violated the law in some respects, but not as much as Apple claims.
By Apple's interpretation of the law, the majority of MacRumors members are CRIMINALS!
And I'm probably one of the longest running users of Apple equipment on this site, so that would make me one of the biggest criminals violating Apple's egregious EULA ever! LOL
I'm NOT a big fan of EULAS or the DMCA law, I think they are BOTH egregious and anti-consumer.

DMCA is the reason you can't buy an HDTV set at Best Buy that's cable ready anymore basically. Who's in favor of that? And if your cable company has not yet switched to encrypted digital, guess what? You're in for a rude awakening soon thanks to DMCA.
So it kinda ticks me off that Apple is leaning on the DMCA "crutch"
That law should be abolished. It's totally anti-consumer and against all previous fair use legal interpretations of media and/or equipment use.

The very idea that you can ONLY INSTALL Apple software on Apple hardware is complete BS and it will eventually be overturned, but probably not in this case because Psystar will be out of business shortly.

I'm sure I'll be pummeled by the FANBOIS now, so let the feeding frenzy begin...

 

[greygray]

Thank God. Psystar is like Palm. Leeching off Apple for it's dirty money-gaining works.

 

[*LTD*]

This isn't just a win for Apple, it's a win for the principles of IP law, and for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.

No one, but NO ONE, selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.

To even think Psystar was going to get away with this is insane. Most of us have been waiting for them to get buried - we knew it was going to happen, it was all a foregone conclusion, but it's happened faster than expected, which is a real bonus. It also sends a clear message to other Psystar copycats.

This is all very encouraging news. The integrity of OS X, which depends on large part to its tie-in with Apple hardware, will be maintained. And those who depend on the integrity of IP law are also strengthened somewhat in their position. The EULA is not a joke.

 

[E.Lizardo]

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.

Right!Just like the way anyone can make a machine that plays Xbox360 games!Oh wait...

 

[E.Lizardo]

Apple can suck it. Greed, greed, greed.

Just going by your username,you obviously don't have a clue about how capitalism works.Pathetic.

 

[Ubuntu]

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.

In principle I agree, as I would happily buy the Mac OS on a cheaper machine, but the fact is, if Apple opened up their software, then the quality would suffer. I like Windows 7, but still, I prefer how the mac OS is tightly-constructed, everything seems to communicate rather well.

Ohhh well.

 

[BLUELION]

Give me a flipping break man

Okay i apologize for the tone, but give me a flipping break.

Apple is in business to sell products that it holds patent to. Psystar did not hold those patents and tried to sell a computer with copyright protected software on it

The software is proprietary dude. If you don't like that reality, then don't buy the goods man. You sound like the people who sued McDonalds over the fat content of the fries....No one forced them to eat those fries just like no one is forcing you to buy Apple products. Get a clue.

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.

 

[andiwm2003]

They weren't selling the software cheaper, or even really selling cheaper systems since the cheapest dual core Psystar was not any cheaper than a Mac mini. They were however filling a hole for the higher performing mid-range ~$800-$1600 quad core desktops.

IMHO Psystar really screwed the Hackintosh scene when they started selling OS X pre-installed on machines. This is the source of the copyright violations they were found guilty of.

If they had just stuck to selling the compatible hardware and unmodified software separately with instructions they would have been able to avoid some of the results of this trial.

B

qft. i don't understand why they didn't ship the computers with a os x disk and let the custome do the simle task of installing os x.

they must have sold more os x installs than copies they bought. that is theft.

i wonder what happens to rebel efi. maybe someone picks it up and starts selling rebel efi disks, driver disks and os x as a bundle. that should be legally clean and if enough drivers are available the market would be huge.

 

[Krevnik]

Indeed. People in other threads have ignored that EULA’s have been upheld before and sure enough, it was upheld again. Sure you can find a coupe of cases where they were voided, but there are more that says that they are.

Cue the rebuttal that “Apple’s EUAL wouldn’t hold up in the EU” and “EUAL’s are invalid in Germany” in 3, 2, 1.....

I may be wrong, but the line of "Meant for Apple Computers only" is the one part of the EULA written clearly on the shrinkwrap. If that's the case, it would be hard to say the EU would side against Apple on this particular issue, as it is information available before the sale, rather than after (and that is what makes the difference between enforceable and not in the EU).

Just to take your comment a little further with a bit more information.

 

[balamw]

*brain cramp*

Let's review. Piracy is when software is stolen, that is, distributed without being paid for. The software Psystar was distributing was paid for by the customer, i.e., not piracy.

It's not the paying for it or not that makes it piracy, it's whether or not you are entitled by copyright law to make and distribute the copies.

Piracy is rampant copyright violation which is exactly what Psystar was found guilty of. Making and distributing copies they were not entitled to make, because they didn't obey the rules that might allow them to do so.

The judge ruled that at least one copy was made for every imaging station and Psystar box they shipped with OS X preinstalled.

It's kind of like the my.MP3.com case. Let's (through normal legal channels) buy and make MP3 copies of all the CDs in the world and distribute them to people who demonstrate to us that they already own a copy of those CDs.

Didn't work for MP3.com either, and won't work for the guy in Santa Cruz who is distributing "psychoacoustic models" of the Beatles music online.

B

 

[Krevnik]

I'm NOT a big fan of EULAS or the DMCA law, I think they are BOTH egregious and anti-consumer.

DMCA is the reason you can't buy an HDTV set at Best Buy that's cable ready anymore basically. Who's in favor of that? And if your cable company has not yet switched to encrypted digital, guess what? You're in for a rude awakening soon thanks to DMCA.
So it kinda ticks me off that Apple is leaning on the DMCA "crutch"
That law should be abolished. It's totally anti-consumer and against all previous fair use legal interpretations of media and/or equipment use.

The DMCA is garbage, yes, but was an attempt to bring copyright into the digital age instead of letting it rot on the vine. They didn't approach the problem from the right way (the problem being: how do you actually enforce copyright in a digital age?), and the DMCA's over-reaching power is the result. In this case, Apple used the DMCA as an extra bludgeon, as pretty standard procedure (even in criminal law): throw as many possible violations on the defendant that you have evidence for, regardless of how you stand on the law. The copyright claims also got summary judgement, so the DMCA violation here really just means extra damages to be awarded to Apple.

The problem with getting rid of EULAs is that you then remove the power of the GPL as well. It is a EULA, too, and an important tool for parts of the OSS community to protect their ability to say how their code is used. It is just much less restrictive than the usual EULA for proprietary software.

The very idea that you can ONLY INSTALL Apple software on Apple hardware is complete BS and it will eventually be overturned, but probably not in this case because Psystar will be out of business shortly.

On what grounds will it overturned? It's not that I don't think you have a point, but you state a conclusion with no evidence or logic to back it up. For me to be convinced you are right, there needs to be more here. Just saying it will happen isn't enough to make it so.

 

[*LTD*]

The very idea that you can ONLY INSTALL Apple software on Apple hardware is complete BS and it will eventually be overturned, but probably not in this case because Psystar will be out of business shortly.

Overturned? How and by whom? After Apple's win here it will be much, much harder to do. This case has set quite a precedent.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

(and please, no PCs are cheaper than Macs, you lost that argument once already).

No you ignored two posts where I showed you I could spec either the Studio or the Zino for about £200 less. Yes they weren't entirely equivalent on specs but even if it were possible to spec a machine that was exactly the same, the price would still have been £150 cheaper.