Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

[PeterQVenkman]

I condemn the hackintoshers, too, just for consistency. If you are a hackintosher you are either:

a) stealing from apple, because you otherwise would have bought their hardware, which is factored into the OS price, OR

b) you wouldn't have bought an apple anyway, because you couldn't afford it, but you feel you are entitled to things you can't afford, which is a disturbing societal trend that needs nipping in the bud, OR

c) you feel you are entitled to a specific configuration Apple doesn't supply, which is really the same as (b) because you simply can't afford to buy more computer than you need (mac pro).

Happy now?

Wow, someone is snobby today. You could just say "I condemn hackintoshers because it's illegal, and can potentially harm Apple, a company whose products I enjoy."

I would have loved to see Apple use this circus as an opportunity to fill the market void that Psystar was clearly filling. If Apple plugged that hole, nobody (or very few people) would complain, and Psystar wouldn't have had a compelling reason to try to sell hackintoshes in the first place.

Of course, I kinda hope there was some shadow corporation behind it all. It's very Tom Clancy and makes the tech world a bit more creepy and exciting!

 

[cmaier]

It doesn't matter whether somebody reads it. The important bit it is that they agree to/sign the contract in someway.

Most people don't read mobile phone contracts, but they are wholly enforceable still as long as the contract does not require that laws are broken.

Using the "didn't read" argument would basically make contracts unenforceable. Clearly, this will never happen.

Actually, there is no contract formed without a "meeting of the minds" ( consensus ad idem, and all that). The law finds a meeting of the minds even if the two sides didn't actually read the contract, under some conditions - typically when the parties behave as though there is a contract, or should have known there was a contract (even if some of the less important terms wouldn't have been obvious), etc. It's actually a complex part of contract law, and contracts can and have been thrown out if one side or the other could not reasonably have expected to understand or realize the terms, and if the terms are unduly favorable to the other side.

 

[cmaier]

Wow, someone is snobby today. You could just say "I condemn hackintoshers because it's illegal, and can potentially harm Apple, a company whose products I enjoy."

If you read my post in context, you'd see I was just being argumentative because the person to whom I was responding was being overly inclusive.

 

[twilson]

Apple charges a good sum for their software, don't try to use how cheap this last upgrade version was, because this should have been free as it was nothing more then a bunch of upgrades that brought it up to 64 bit tech.

You keep telling yourself that. That is a statement of the ill-informed.

At least we don't have to pay for a 32-bit version of the OS and then again for a 64-bit version as with Windows (at least was the case upto Vista).

Numerous changes/features in Snow Leopard had absolutely nothing to do with moving to 64-bit.

Exchange Support for one.
Massive app re-writes from the ground up in Cocoa, not just a "quick recompile" or something that should even be considered a small job.

 

[twilson]

Actually, there is no contract formed without a "meeting of the minds" ( consensus ad idem, and all that). The law finds a meeting of the minds even if the two sides didn't actually read the contract, under some conditions - typically when the parties behave as though there is a contract, or should have known there was a contract (even if some of the less important terms wouldn't have been obvious), etc.

The EULA has nothing to do with "should have known", you are explicitly told that it is a contract and by clicking "I Agree" you are entering into that contract and told that if you don't agree or don't understand then don't click "I Agree".

It's actually a complex part of contract law, and contracts can and have been thrown out if one side or the other could not reasonably have expected to understand or realize the terms, and if the terms are unduly favorable to the other side.

Yet EULAs all pretty much the same boilerplate text to them and have been upheld as valid contracts on numerous occasions. The main difference in Apple's is the restriction of installation on Apple hardware only, and that hardly constitutes "unduly favourable to the other side", Apple doesn't gain from that stipulation.

 

[cmaier]

The EULA has nothing to do with "should have known", you are explicitly told that it is a contract and by clicking "I Agree" you are entering into that contract and told that if you don't agree or don't understand then don't click "I Agree".

The point is you said that it doesn't matter if the party didn't read the EULA. The truth is that even if the party read the EULA, if there is no "meeting of the minds" there is no contract. And if the party didn't read the EULA because it is presented in such a way that most people wouldn't read it, there is even less chance of a meeting of the minds.

That is not to say that the EULA is not binding - I am merely correcting your mistaken point of law.

 

[*LTD*]

Jeezus, this thread has gone on for far too long. It isn't that difficult to understand the point of the ruling.

 

[MH01]

Wrong again, read the license, you may need to take remedial reading.

It was my own point of view, I know the EULA agreement. But thanks for pointing out that you do not understand the difference between reading and comprehension, the best reading skills in the world will not help you with an EULA.

 

[MH01]

Jeezus, this thread has gone on for far too long. It isn't that difficult to understand the point of the ruling.

hmmmm Mate you are the one throwing fuel on the fire and keeping it going. First to post on it and now want your last word in.

 

[rileyes]

You defeated yourself. As you pointed out, you buy a "rent" OS X( which in the case of a OS, you buy a license). Just like when you rent a movie or something, you agree to the terms and conditions of the rental place. When you buy Mac OS X, you bought a license and agreed to Apple's terms of use.

copyright law, particularly with software, has gone so far beyond protecting the copyright holder. It has become a means of corporations retaining absolute control of their "product", thus retaining control of you. Go to a store and buy some software...notice they don't make you sign any license agreement BEFORE they take your money. Notice that the license agreement isnt available to read outside of the box. No, they take your money, hand you a product, and then when you try to use it they throw some legal text in front of you that you have to agree to. But get this...most stores wont refund opened software. So, your choice is either to lose your money if you don't agree to the license agreement, or else agree.

So, my support goes to psystar. They were never a threat to Apple's bottom line. It's about control, and nothing else.

 

[pdjudd]

copyright law, particularly with software, has gone so far beyond protecting the copyright holder. It has become a means of corporations retaining absolute control of their "product", thus retaining control of you.

Indeed, thats the entire point of copyright - to protect content that is easy to illegally copy outside of the creators wishes.

Go to a store and buy some software...notice they don't make you sign any license agreement BEFORE they take your money.

Thats irrelevant. The retailer is often not the licensee.

Notice that the license agreement isnt available to read outside of the box.

It doesn’t have to be available on the box, it just has to be available. All of Microsoft and Apples products tell you where to find versions on the software - all of these are on the box. It’s impractical to publish legal documentation on a box and expect customers to be able to read in in a store - it’s easier at home - before opening the box.

No, they take your money, hand you a product, and then when you try to use it they throw some legal text in front of you that you have to agree to. But get this...most stores wont refund opened software.

Again, retailers are often not licensees - they set their own terms. You rejecting the license is between you and the publisher (rights holder) not the retailer.

So, your choice is either to lose your money if you don't agree to the license agreement, or else agree.

Thats a false dilema. I can read Apple’s, Microsoft’s, and tons of other companies licensing terms to my hearts content long before I go to the store and open the box. In this case, Apple provides you with instructions where to find the licensing in plain English right on the box.

So, my support goes to psystar. They were never a threat to Apple's bottom line. It's about control, and nothing else.

If they (Psystar) made any money whatsoever, they are a threat - they are depriving Apple profits that they are legally entitled to.

 

[r.j.s]

So, your choice is either to lose your money if you don't agree to the license agreement, or else agree.

100% not true. If you do not agree to the terms, you can get your money back, probably not from the retailer, but definitely from the developer.

 

[nuvolino]

Another crushing win for Apple's iSue dept.

So ironic that Apple will sue anyone it can to protect its intellectual property yet its foundation is built on stolen Atari technology.

Sad what it's become.

what are you on about OSX is based on Next which was made by steve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT

 

[Byrnes3969]

what are you on about OSX is based on Next which was made by steve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT

Oh for Pete's sake, go back to the beginning of this post and follow my links.

 

[ProwlingTiger]

Finally...justice. Sorry, Pystar had no right to do this, er rather Apple had every right to defend it's OS intellectual property rights. Anyone disagreeing with that needs to verse themselves in a little law.

 

[NickFalk]

It doesn't matter whether somebody reads it. The important bit it is that they agree to/sign the contract in someway...

Using the "didn't read" argument would basically make contracts unenforceable. Clearly, this will never happen.

I don't think it's quite as straightforward as that, perhaps in the US, but certainly not in a lot of other countries. (Including most of Europe I would guess). Here's why:

When you enter a store you buy a physical copy of OSX. Money exchange hands an by definition a sale has been made. There is usually some small print on the packaging saying that you agree to some terms bla bla if you open the package, but frankly no-one can demand that you read this as you actually already own the copy you've bought and these terms were not made clear to you prior to your purchase.

So, if I open the box start to install the software and find that I can't agree with the EULA I believe very few merchants would refund my money...

 

[NickFalk]

Thats irrelevant. The retailer is often not the licensee.

Probably correct under US-law but in a lot of countries the retailer is 100% responsible towards the consumer.

 

[myca]

you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.

Does this mean that I'm not breaking the EULA with my Hackintosh as I have a few Apple stickers on there, you know the ones included with their software and hardware from way back

 

[pdjudd]

Probably correct under US-law but in a lot of countries the retailer is 100% responsible towards the consumer.

I agree - thats why retailers say “don’t open software” yet software licensing still exists 100% as a viable business. Retailers are not licensees - if they have any online presence or a physical one, they state somewhere that when it comes to software - they are not responsible for informing you of the license - it tends to be the consumer’s responsibility since a license is a separate element to the sale. You don’t accept a license at the store - you do so at a different time after it and the license agreement (at least with Apple) tells you that you can return unused software. The retailers obligations tends to stop at defects related to what they sell you (which is the disc not the bits). That’s the key - toy buy a disc - you license the bits separately. We have already covered this on other threads.

All of these terms are available online at any point to the consumer. The retailer removes their obligation once the box is opened - if you do not wish to accept the retailers obligation that is not the fault of anybody but you.

 

[pdjudd]

Does this mean that I'm not breaking the EULA with my Hackintosh as I have a few Apple stickers on there, you know the ones included with their software and hardware from way back

No, you are not authorized to brand anything that you do not own the rights to nor do those stickers constitute branding in any sense. In fact, you would be worse off since it would constitute fraud willingly since you intend to use someone else's trademarks improperly.

 

[KnightWRX]

Oh for Pete's sake, go back to the beginning of this post and follow my links.

Oh for Pete's sake, your links didn't prove anything. For the most part, in the culture of the 70s and 80s, the kind of "borrowing" and initiative shown by Steve and Woz was encouraged in tech companies. Start a project, show it to the higher ups. Tech companies loved this because it was free engineering and could result in products the company could then market and ship for profit.

The links also say that Steve did show the first computer to Atari and that Atari refused it. There was no stealing, no under handed practices. Apple did not steal any Atari technology or even parts to make their first computer.

Seriously, as others have said before, at least try to stick to the "They stole from Xerox!" if you're going to even try to make that argument (never mind that the Xerox folks got Apple stock and Steve asked for permission to visit PARC and "borrow" ideas).

I know you will ignore this post like you did all the ones that said the same thing in this thread because you are a revisionist troll and don't care about facts.

So, if I open the box start to install the software and find that I can't agree with the EULA I believe very few merchants would refund my money...

Apple does :

http://www.apple.com/legal/sales_policies/retail_us.html

Note that, as an exception, you may return Apple branded software within the 14-day return period, and not be subject to a restocking fee, if you do not agree to the licensing terms, provided you do not retain any copies, including copies stored on a computer or other device. However, if your software includes a license that you can read before you break the seal or sticker on the software media packaging, you may not return the software once you break the software media packaging seal or sticker.

And it's clearly indicated on the box. My Snow Leopard box says and I quote : "Important Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreement(s) included in this package www.apple.com".

 

[cmaier]

No, you are not authorized to brand anything that you do not own the rights to nor do those stickers constitute branding in any sense. In fact, you would be worse off since it would constitute fraud willingly since you intend to use someone else's trademarks improperly.

He wouldn't be worse off unless he sold it. It's not trademark infringement unless someone (a potential purchaser) is likely to confuse his computer for an Apple.

Likewise, it's not fraud since no one is relying on his false statement of origin (other than he, himself).

It is, however, a EULA breach.

 

[3lutz3toe]

The bottom line is Apple is a hypocrite in this instance! Can you imagine if MS forbid Apple users from installing Windows OS on their computers? VMFusion, Parrallel and Bootcamp are all programs that allow Apple machines to run Windows!
—US laws usually side w/ the corp. instead w/ the consumers!

 

[r.j.s]

The bottom line is Apple is a hypocrite in this instance! Can you imagine if MS forbid Apple users from installing Windows OS on their computers? VMFusion, Parrallel and Bootcamp are all programs that allow Apple machines to run Windows!
—US laws usually side w/ the corp. instead w/ the consumers!

Except that isn't MS' business model. They want you to install Windows on anything and everything.

 

[cmaier]

The bottom line is Apple is a hypocrite in this instance! Can you imagine if MS forbid Apple users from installing Windows OS on their computers? VMFusion, Parrallel and Bootcamp are all programs that allow Apple machines to run Windows!
—US laws usually side w/ the corp. instead w/ the consumers!

No, apple is not a hypocrite. Apple, like MS, insists that its EULA is obeyed. The fact that Apple has a different EULA than MS because its business model is different doesn't make it a hypocrite.