Apple Wins Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

[pdjudd]

But honestly, I would NOT be surprised AT ALL if them and this whole fiasco was funded and orchestrated by Microsoft or one of the huge tech companies! We will probably never know, especially since it is probably true lol!

One teeny tiny problem - all of the companies (especially MS) that you mention indireclty almost certaily to some degree run their businesses enitrely around the concept of software licensing and copyright - which is exactly what Psystar was infringing on and was arguing was legal.

MS's entire business is based on software licensing - it would be insane for them to fund any company that would run it's business the way it does - not to mention that all of the tech companies rely on copyright and licensing to some degree. All of them would be hurt way worse if this case would have succeeded for Psystar.

 

[*LTD*]

I can't believe some of you condemn Psystar for offering hackintosh computers, but then defend X86.org who's code psystar used. Then on top of that you want to cry that Psystar didn't give recognition to X86.org.

Really?

Kind of a double standard don't you think? YAY X86, BOO Psystar?

One is profiting from it commercially (threatening the integrity of IP law) and the other is not.

 

[cmaier]

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?

 

[BaldiMac]

Whoa. One moment, please. I said absolutely nothing about distribution. When I read a book I am not distributing that book. When a computer runs a program, it is not distributing it.

The law is wrong and unjust. This is my opinion. It is every bit as valid as those who think the law is perfectly just and fine.

In my opinion when I walk into a store and buy a box containing some media with bits on it, then I should own that copy of those bits and be able to do whatever the heck I want with those bits short of duplicating them and distributing them to others. Copyright makes sense to me as an incentive to produce creative works and be able to have a limited monopoly for a time over the copying and distribution of those works. However, how an end-user USES a copyrighted work is no ones business but the end user's. No entity has any, inherent moral right to interfere with that, unless the use itself is immoral. (Extreme examples: using a gun to commit murder, or using a software program to defraud someone.)

I should be legally able to use any technical means to use any hardware with any software. I should be legally able to use any technical means available to use any two pieces of hardware together. The use of any technical or legal means to prevent the use of arbitrary hardware and software together should be prohibited by law.

I believe in obeying the law. I also believe in getting laws that are unjust or immoral changed through legal means.

Does my position limit the power creators have over their work? Yes. Does it limit them on how much they may benefit financially from their work? Yes. Does having copyrights that last over a century limit how much creative works can benefit the society as a whole? Absolutely. Does is limit further creativity by preventing the timely enrichment of the public domain. Absolutely.

The purpose of IP rights is not so that individuals can benefit from their creativity without limit. It is to grant them limited benefit from their creativity for a limited period of time as an incentive so that people will make creative works, which will benefit society as a whole. In our present society these goals have been grossly perverted to perpetuate strangleholds on creative works that are harming the public good.

The pendulum has been swinging for too long in one direction.

In my opinion, a company like PyStar should be allowed to do what they did. It should be legal to do. It should be illegal to attempt to stop them. The laws should be changed so that this is so.

In my opinion, a company like Palm should be allowed to do what they did. It should be legal to do. It should be illegal to attempt to stop them. The laws should be changed so that this is so.

It should be illegal for a company to deliberately break compatibility between software and hardware in their next version. They should be under no obligation to make sure that compatibility is maintained, but any intent to make changes solely to make it so that their own hardware and software no longer works with a third party's (or works worse, see the recent FTC filing against Intel). The intent matters.

That's a lot of "should be's" without any practical alternative. Yes, copyright has been extended too long. Shortening the term to 37 years would have little effect on software such as OS X. What else have you suggested?

 

[MacFly123]

One teeny tiny problem - all of the companies (especially MS) that you mention indireclty almost certaily to some degree run their businesses enitrely around the concept of software licensing and copyright - which is exactly what Psystar was infringing on and was arguing was legal.

MS's entire business is based on software licensing - it would be insane for them to fund any company that would run it's business the way it does - not to mention that all of the tech companies rely on copyright and licensing to some degree. All of them would be hurt way worse if this case would have succeeded for Psystar.

Perhaps. Or maybe they just wanted Apple to feel a little of the monopoly, anti-trust pain that they have. Destroying Apple's control of the ecosystem would hurt Apple very badly!

Microsoft or not, it just all smells very fishy in general.

 

[pdjudd]

Perhaps. Or maybe they just wanted Apple to feel a little of the monopoly, anti-trust pain that they have. Destroying Apple's control of the ecosystem would hurt Apple very badly!

I doubt that MS would care - they rather liked their monopoly that was abusive - they profited immensely and the fines that they had to pay were a slap on the wrist considering what they could have faced. Lets face it - this case tried to say that software licensing was invalid - something that no company delaying in IP would have wanted. To imply that any comany wants to play around in court for no reason is silly.

Not to mention that this case had no chance of succeeding whatsoever - MS loves how Apple is - hardly a real threat to their established monopoly but still competing. Gates has long said that Apple rightfully competes with MS - albeit differently. He has no problem with it. This lawsuit would have been suicidal if Apple would have lost. MS does not want Apple to go away - that would be really bad for them legally.

Not to mention that Apple could adapt and sell their software in another fashion that nobody could get around without going through tons of effort and would result in actual theft.

Microsoft or not, it just all smells very fishy in general.

No - I see a couple of idiots that ran their company like any other SB over would and got a law firm that takes cases on contingency. Of course they might get somewhere and can con investors, but that is a side issue. I see no reason that any backers have to be there at all.

 

[jmadlena]

I can't believe some of you condemn Psystar for offering hackintosh computers, but then defend X86.org who's code psystar used. Then on top of that you want to cry that Psystar didn't give recognition to X86.org.

Really?

Kind of a double standard don't you think? YAY X86, BOO Psystar?

I think there is a difference. Individuals making hackintoshes really are just hobbiests. They will find a way to make it work because they love it, and they may not even be interested in buying a Mac at all. But Psystar was doing this for a profit. Selling to people who may have actually purchased a Mac, and so they are cutting into Apple's market.

When you start doing things for profit is when you get into shady areas.

 

[KnightWRX]

The post was a response to the comment about how Psystar was piggy backing their company on the efforts of the folks involved with the hackintosh project and turning a profit. Apple piggy backed on the efforts of the open source community that has created the x86 version of BSD and others and is selling a commercial product built on top of it... turning a (massive) profit. OSX licensing aside, I wanted to point that fact out. It's well within their (Apple) right to do this, but I wanted to make the point that it's not uncommon (in fact it's typically encouraged) to take open source and make it your own. OSX would not be what it is today without the open source community. The large number of network/systems engineers (like myself) and software developers only considered it a viable OS because of the UNIX underpinnings. If it wasn't for the underpinnings it would still be an operating system catering to the typical end user and "artsy" graphics guys.

Again, you're missing the point. Psystar isn't doing the same thing as Apple is doing. They are infringing on the copyright of the OSX86 project and not respecting the license their code is under. They have ripped off the project's code to make Rebel EFI.

Apple does no such thing. To compare the two is grossly ignorant on your part. You either don't understand the symbiotic nature that Apple shares with the BSD community (and other open source communities) where they take the code but contribute back their changes and respect the licenses or you're grossly overrating Psystar's contribution to the communities from which they take code and their respect of the licenses involved.

Again, Psystar doesn't respect the IP of the open source communities and doesn't respect Apple's IP. This is not even close to being a Pot calling a kettle black thing.

 

[michaelr123]

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?

Unfortunately, C is overkill, and would be wasting money for the sake of wasting money. I would like something that has the power of the iMac, but without the screen. If Apple aren't prepared to make it, they have no one but themselves to blame when people turn to other means to run OSX. Rightly or wrongly, they just have to deal with it. They either need to play the game, or get out of the game - no matter what Apple does to stop their software being installed on another computer, there's someone out there better who can get around this. Software & hardware are 2 completely different markets when it comes to computers, it's Apple that tries to combine them into one commodity market. If Apple's hardware is as brilliant as they like to make out, it should be able to stand on its own feet even if OSX is sold to run on any hardware. And if OSX is as amazing as Apple make out, then it should be able to stand on its own without the hardware.

 

[cmaier]

If Apple aren't prepared to make it, they have no one but themselves to blame when people turn to other means to run OSX. Rightly or wrongly, they just have to deal with it.

So Ferrari won't sell me a free car, but there's a lot of demand for it, so I have the right to break into the showroom and steal one?

 

[chris200x9]

it's things like this that make me wonder why anyon even uses proprietary OSes / software

 

[cmaier]

it's things like this that make me wonder why anyon even uses proprietary OSes / software

Because when software is designed by committee, it behaves like software designed by committee. I used unix (bsd, solaris, pa-risc, ibm) systems for a decade, then switched to linux for a few years, and it was a mess in comparison.

 

[chris200x9]

Because when software is designed by committee, it behaves like software designed by committee. I used unix (bsd, solaris, pa-risc, ibm) systems for a decade, then switched to linux for a few years, and it was a mess in comparison.

use BSD? I don't see where this is going non-proprietary != linux

 

[cmaier]

use BSD? I don't see where this is going non-proprietary != linux

I'm talking the original BSD Unix, not the newfangled freebsd/openbsd/netbsd/whateverbsd stuff. Back when the code came from the camel's mouth, from a small team, and wasn't a design-by-committee.

9 out of 10 "non-proprietary" apps/OS's are a mess. Crappy "kitchen sink" user interfaces full of inconsistencies and too many controls to confuse non-experts, etc.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

So Ferrari won't sell me a free car, but there's a lot of demand for it, so I have the right to break into the showroom and steal one?

Do these comparisons ever make sense? It reminds me of the famous "men are not potatoes" quote from Heinlein's Starship Troopers.

Perhaps a better question is, does a Ferrari run OSX?

 

[chris200x9]

9 out of 10 "non-proprietary" apps/OS's are a mess. Crappy "kitchen sink" user interfaces full of inconsistencies and too many controls to confuse non-experts, etc.

I disagree, I don't want to hijack this thread but yea I majorly disagree.

 

[MacFly123]

I doubt that MS would care - they rather liked their monopoly that was abusive - they profited immensely and the fines that they had to pay were a slap on the wrist considering what they could have faced. Lets face it - this case tried to say that software licensing was invalid - something that no company delaying in IP would have wanted. To imply that any comany wants to play around in court for no reason is silly.

Not to mention that this case had no chance of succeeding whatsoever - MS loves how Apple is - hardly a real threat to their established monopoly but still competing. Gates has long said that Apple rightfully competes with MS - albeit differently. He has no problem with it. This lawsuit would have been suicidal if Apple would have lost. MS does not want Apple to go away - that would be really bad for them legally.

Not to mention that Apple could adapt and sell their software in another fashion that nobody could get around without going through tons of effort and would result in actual theft.



No - I see a couple of idiots that ran their company like any other SB over would and got a law firm that takes cases on contingency. Of course they might get somewhere and can con investors, but that is a side issue. I see no reason that any backers have to be there at all.

Perhaps they were backed by a rival in trying to disrupt Apple's ecosystem but then once they got in legal trouble the backer abandoned them and in turn lead to their bankruptcy.

But I guess you have it all figured out!

Oh... wait... there was ONE LITTLE detail: The fact that Apple themselves thinks it was a conspiracy and that they were backed by a rival company or something of the sort! I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but obviously Apple has reason to believe the same thing I expressed!

 

[cmaier]

Oh... wait... there was ONE LITTLE detail: The fact that Apple themselves thinks it was a conspiracy and that they were backed by a rival company or something of the sort! I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but obviously Apple has reason to believe the same thing I expressed!

Says who? Not that John Does thing again? That's not what that means.

 

[gnasher729]

But honestly, I would NOT be surprised AT ALL if them and this whole fiasco was funded and orchestrated by Microsoft or one of the huge tech companies! We will probably never know, especially since it is probably true lol!

Microsoft most certainly didn't win Psystar to win. Imagine all the companies using Microsoft Office would stop to buy an expensive company license, and instead every third employee is asked to purchase a family license allowing three installations. So much cheaper.

 

[pdjudd]

Perhaps they were backed by a rival in trying to disrupt Apple's ecosystem but then once they got in legal trouble the backer abandoned them and in turn lead to their bankruptcy.

But I guess you have it all figured out!

Oh... wait... there was ONE LITTLE detail: The fact that Apple themselves thinks it was a conspiracy and that they were backed by a rival company or something of the sort! I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but obviously Apple has reason to believe the same thing I expressed!

Says who? Not that John Does thing again? That's not what that means.

Exactly. The fact that a company files a John Doe suit does not mean that they actually exist - they are filed very frequently and only apply if they are actually identified or if they exist. If they do not exist, they are dropped - kinda like how the Psystar case - all the judgments have been addressed to Psystar - no John Does have been identified - if there were any we would have either seen who they are or seen a motion for them to be suppressed - we haven't.

I say, unless anybody can provide solid evidence (including names) of who is funding Psystar, we should conclude as Apple and the courts have, that none exists.

 

[twilson]

I had no doubt that Apple would prevail on the DMCA issues - the licensing was a bit more dicey. And I still have a lot of concerns about the consumer-friendliness of allowing software vendors to hide unfair or even abusive legally-binding clauses in contracts that essentially nobody ever reads.

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.

 

[twilson]

Has anybody actually opened up an Apple computer and has actually seen what is there? Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Crucial, Marvell Yukon, Broadcom, Nvidia, SMP, and that isn't even cracking open the case. What part of that is Apple?

What's your point.

The branding, case and quite often the motherboard designs are all Apple. The EULA states it can be installed on an Apple branded computer only. i.e. A computer made by Apple. And Apple are the only ones legally entitled to use the Apple brand.

Move along!

 

[twilson]

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.

It's all just semantics at the end of the day, as the precedent was set by the application of existing laws.

 

[twilson]

Deleted

 

[Perrumpo]

Dayum, Psystar just got pwned.