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 Permanent Injunction Against Psystar
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I couldn't agree more. We should all be saddened by this. But I think that most do no understand the consequences of actions like these. They are not helping anyone. And if you would go back to the 70's when Steve and Steve were making stuff and selling it out of their garage they would not have liked it either.
thedude
How so, as this case was about trademark and copyright infringement. Therefore, ALL issues relating to copyright infringement have to be addressed.
You can't cherry pick, it either infringes or it doesn't. If it infringes or promotes infringement, it must stop!
"Let's think of the people who can't afford a $1k mac".
It's called the used market, and there are plenty of quite adequate macs available for pennies on the original dollar, and lots of older but legal versions of popular apps as well. More to the point, and I agree that there are many people that would have trouble coughing up $1000, why is it okay to live off of someone else's work? You speak of open source like it is some kind of free giveaway program, but it reality, it is funded by companies like Apple, and both paid and volunteer programmers are involved.
As a person that uses computers and very pricey software in my business (engineering/manufacturing), nothing ticks me off more than competitors freeloading.
Hackintosh people, rationalize the ethics, and knock yourselves out. But profit on someone else's work and you are a freeloader. Psystar was freeloading, and I am happy with Apple's success.
Interesting idea, but for one major flaw...no new law has been created.
There is however, now a precedent that has been set using EXISTING laws.
Wait, so the case in florida won't help them. Is Psystar permanently screwed? Will they go out of business.
I can't wait to find out.
I can't wait to find out.
Delusions...
The hackintosh crowd has created, by shear force of repetition, the myth of a massive market for cheap Mac clones. They are delusional. It simply doesn't exist. But they continue on with their irrational theories. Even their hero, the "mighty" Psystar, only sold something like 768 clones in all of 2009. Now, in their despair, some are even claiming that at Apple itself was behind Psystar (see previous posts alleging just that). Repeat a lie often enough and hope somebody will believe it? Wow.
So much for the clone market. So much for the mythical hackintosh market.
The hackintosh crowd has created, by shear force of repetition, the myth of a massive market for cheap Mac clones. They are delusional. It simply doesn't exist. But they continue on with their irrational theories. Even their hero, the "mighty" Psystar, only sold something like 768 clones in all of 2009. Now, in their despair, some are even claiming that at Apple itself was behind Psystar (see previous posts alleging just that). Repeat a lie often enough and hope somebody will believe it? Wow.
So much for the clone market. So much for the mythical hackintosh market.
Atari? That's some strong pot you're smoking, Sir...if you wanna talk BS, you may at least try to repeat what most ignorants already say: that Apple stole from Xerox.
Get a dictionary and look up "fanboy" and "zealot". Did you even read the articles? Does the truth hurt? Is the Mac your new religion? That would make Steve your God.
That's right, Atari passed on the offer. They didn't SUE APPLE into non-existance. Psystar sold 780 computers. What kind of threat did they pose?
What new law was created here? This was effective implementation of existing law!
Like, DUH! Atari wasn't in the computer business so Apple was not a threat on their business. Apple is in the computer business, so Psyster computers are a threat on their business. Breaking the law a little bit is still breaking the law. It's like being a little bit pregnant, you're either pregnant or not.
The hackintosh crowd has created, by shear force of repetition, the myth of a massive market for cheap Mac clones. They are delusional. It simply doesn't exist. But they continue on with their irrational theories. Even their hero, the "mighty" Psystar, only sold something like 768 clones in all of 2009. Now, in their despair, some are even claiming that at Apple itself was behind Psystar (see previous posts alleging just that). Repeat a lie often enough and hope somebody will believe it? Wow.
So much for the clone market. So much for the mythical hackintosh market.
Even then not all those computers they sold were clones.
Because Jobs ripped off his best friend Woz, so he could keep the Atari bonus for himself. Woz did all the work and Jobs kept most of the money. Steve would rip off his friend but pay back his employer? Doubt it.
But maybe Apple legal advised him to do so after the fact. Who knows?
The hackintosh crowd has created, by shear force of repetition, the myth of a massive market for cheap Mac clones. They are delusional. It simply doesn't exist. But they continue on with their irrational theories. Even their hero, the "mighty" Psystar, only sold something like 768 clones in all of 2009. Now, in their despair, some are even claiming that at Apple itself was behind Psystar (see previous posts alleging just that). Repeat a lie often enough and hope somebody will believe it? Wow.
So much for the clone market. So much for the mythical hackintosh market.
Neither did the real hackintosh community create a myth of a massive market, nor was Psystar their hero.
That has always been the case. Open up an old Powermac and you'll see much the same thing.
Not exactly theft, now is it?
I'm missing out on the intellectual property that Atari lost. If anything, Atari benefited from the relationship with Jobs, even though they opted out on the early PC market. Jobs offered the computer to HP as well, yet another place the Woz worked for a bit, but HP couldn't see the market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs
In the autumn of 1974, Jobs returned to California and began attending meetings of the Homebrew Computer Club with Steve Wozniak. He took a job as a technician at Atari, a manufacturer of popular video games, with the primary intent of saving money for a spiritual retreat to India.
< non relevant material removed>
He returned to his previous job at Atari and was given the task of creating a circuit board for the game Breakout. According to Atari founder Nolan Bushnell, Atari had offered US$100 for each chip that was reduced in the machine. Jobs had little interest or knowledge in circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the bonus evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Much to the amazement of Atari, Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50, a design so tight that it was impossible to reproduce on an assembly line. At the time, Jobs told Wozniak that Atari had only given them $600 (instead of the actual $5000) and that Wozniak's share was thus $300.[25][26][27][28][29][30]
Jobs was a dick for stiffing Woz, and you can argue that he misused Atari resources to have his board produced, and the various parts that he "borrowed" from Atari, but he did offer them the finished product, so it must not have been a big deal to Atari.
I have trouble seeing Psystar as a victim here. They really haven't created much of anything other than an easier install of OSX for Hackintosh, using other's work at that, and they are acknowledged by this legal action to have wronged Apple.
Given the details of the ruling, Psystar is pretty much barred from having anything to do with OS X and having anything to do with technology that would either aid them or the user in installing OS X or otherwise infringing Apple's EULA. So it looks like all they have left is the option to sell anytihing else that has nothing to do with Apple or OS X.
The ruling, with which Psystar must comply by Dec. 31:
1. Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or creating derivative works of plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software without authorization from the copyright holder;
2. Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software;
3. Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
4. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff’s copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
5. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.
That seems to cover ALL the bases.
And with regard to Atari . . . I'm not even sure how that made its way into the dicussion. The Atari argument (which has been proven wrong) is the refuge of the outed and defeated. This is about Psystar in 2009. The ruling has been made, enjoy your hackintoshes, but as for OS X sold on fake Macs, forget it.
Atari DID enter the computer business. Did you ever hear of the Atari 400 or 800? Atari COULD have sued Apple but chose not to.
What is psystar's business model was breaking into apple stores at night and stealing machines and selling them at a discount? Are we to root for them in that scenario?
Because their business model was, in reality, theft. They were not competition for apple. They were thieves. If they wanted to compete, they should write their own operating system instead of free-riding on Apples R&D.
You complain about the US legal system, but rulings like this are why most innovation happens here. Intellectual Property is protected, which gives people the incentive to put in the large investments needed to develop killer products like Mac OS X.
Precedent is law (there are two sources of law - statutory and precedential [the so-called "common law"]).
This is merely a technical nit, though. The precedent isn't new, either. This case ended just like every similar case that has gone before. No new law or surprising result here, and apple didn't fund this - that would be a fraud on th court.