Computerworld: Pystar may move forward with copyright claims against Apple

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by GeekLawyer, Feb 8, 2009.

  1. GeekLawyer macrumors demi-god

    GeekLawyer

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Location:
    The post is coming from inside the house!
    #1
    According to reports, the Court has allowed Pystar leave to amend its countersuit against Apple.

    Many observers believe that this is very shakey legal territory for Pystar. Their claim that Apple is misusing copyright law is a strange one. But, it's Pystar's first "victory" in the case and does seem newsworthy.


    (please remove if duplicative... I did a search just in case...)
     
  2. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #2
    The interesting part is of course that companies copying Pystar are coming up more and more .. i just read that in germany a company is now offering PCs with either OS X Vista or Linux preinstalled (called Pear PC) claiming that Apple's EULA is ignoring German regulation

    https://www.pearc.de/index.php
     
  3. CompactMacUser macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    #3
    Psystar?

    925mac.com are reporting that Psystar are being allowed to continue in their lawsuit against Apple. If OSX is allowed to run on platforms other than the Mac platform, the whole basis of the OS will be undermined - the whole point is that the os runs perfectly on MAC hardware as it is the only variation that the software has to be adapted for.

    If Apple looses it's monopoly over the OSX platform there may be trouble ahead. What do you guys think, should there be alternatives to the Macintosh platform and OSX combined???
     
  4. netnothing macrumors 68040

    netnothing

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    NH
    #4
    Hopefully Apple wins this thing quickly and doesn't spend a ton of money on it (although they have enough :D )....money that can be better used for R&D.

    Pystar is a joke.

    Listen, you want to get OS X on non-Apple hardware, go build a Hackintosh.....but it's just scummy to try to profit from what Apple and it's engineers have done. It's Apple's software and hardware and if they want to tie them together, fine with me.

    Everyone is writing about this as a huge win for Pystar, however, this quote from the article makes it sound less than promising for them:

    -Kevin
     
  5. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #5
    I just get the feeling that the judge is of the mindset "if you give someone enough rope..." :D
     
  6. Cave Man macrumors 604

    Cave Man

    #6
    I guess we'll just have to see how it settles out. I suspect neither side will be completely happy about the outcome, and I think Apple has the most to lose.

    No, it's not.

    But monopolies are illegal in the United States (well, except for Major League Baseball). The question really is, is Apple a monopoly? I don't think so, but the courts will have to decide. Consumer laws are pretty ambiguous as to what one can do with software that is purchased for one's own personal use.

    I'm very happy with my ugly, noisy hackintosh. I'd rather have an elegant, quiet Apple box, but they do not make a computer that fits my desktop needs. I'd have been happy to spend $1500 on an Apple box over the $1000 I've spent on my hackintosh for the same performance if Apple built one. But I don't think that'll happen anytime soon.
     
  7. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #7
    Close, Anti-competitive monopolies are illegal. Being a monopoly in of itself is perfectly legal.
     
  8. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #8
    I see this as the judge being curious as to what Psystar might have up its sleeve. Nothing more.

    This is really a non-story.

    In other news, the world is still spinning.
     
  9. Winni macrumors 68030

    Winni

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Germany.
    #9
    There are now also German Mac clones available:

    www.pearc.de

    And, as the company states in their FAW, this is legal in Germany. And Apple also cannot claim copyright infringement: You can install a completely unmodified OS X on those machines.
     
  10. Winni macrumors 68030

    Winni

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Germany.
    #10
    Monopoly: The exclusive possession, control or exercise of something.

    Or, according to Wikipedia: "In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos , alone or single + polein , to sell) exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods."

    Repeat: Lack of competition.

    Now how can a monopoly not be anti-competitive? Answer: It can't. Monopolies are by their very nature anti-competitive. That's the whole idea behind them.
     
  11. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    But if you happen to be the only company making and selling a product, you have a monopoly, but are not anti-competitive, unless you are actively trying to force out competition.
     
  12. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    And pigs have wings, or so it is said.

    The antitrust claim went down in flames, so they are testing yet another novel legal theory.
     
  13. Winni macrumors 68030

    Winni

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Germany.
    #13
    It's not about a German regulation. Apple's EULA is most likely not valid by German LAW, and that is what that company correctly claims.

    Furthermore, the German company is not even selling a patched version of OS X. You get a Boot CD with an EFI emulator with their machines and a regular box version of OS X that the customer must install himself. So there's not even a chance in hell that Apple could claim copyright infringement. All they have is their EULA, and that won't hold up in a German court of law.

    I love it. :)
     
  14. petermcphee macrumors 6502a

    petermcphee

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    #14
    That PearC starter machine is not too shabby for the price. (I guess because I don't speak German). But based on my assumptions, it looks ok.
     
  15. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #15
    -Winni

    There is a legal distinction between a definition e.g. being defined as a monopoly, in this case, and action, e.g. leveraging the market position having a monopoly allows to anticompetitve ends.

    Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, yet they still operate.
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    Why do you love it? I know many people simply hate all IP laws. Is that the reason?

    The way I see it, Apple has more to go on than simply their EULA. They also have the right to authorize resellers of their products.
     
  17. BaldiMac macrumors 604

    BaldiMac

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    #17
    Why is it most likely not valid by German law? Do you have any information to support this claim? Or are you just hoping?
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #18
    on retail software unless the whole EULA is printed on the outside an EULA is not valid (printing a link to a webpage doesn't count, has been ruled "unzumutbar" AFAIR)
    also there can be problems with validity with normal AGBs if there are unlawful clauses in such contracts (happened to Microsoft, Blizzard)

    edit: to make it more clear:if the EULA is printed on the box completley, put up on a webpage before online sale or shown before installation of a downloadable software it can be valid _but_ it is by law then classified as an AGB and thus also bound by the BGB which then means unlawful clauses --> whole thing invalid
    most become invalid because they restrict the End User more than which is allowed under german law or because they claim they are not responsible for _any_ damages etc.
     

Share This Page