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.
Psystar Halts Sales of Mac Clones, Plans Legal Appeal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, Apple sucks. That is all. But I'm already stocking popcorn for the day that Apple sues PearC here in Germany. Boy, will Apple get their butts kicked when they try it.
Microsoft's business model of bundling a Windows license with a specific computer was illegal by German laws as the Bundesgerichtshof (something similar to your Supreme Court) decided. Now do the maths and think how great Apple's chances are with their own version of the same bundling policy. There's no chance in hell that Apple could win this legal battle in Germany. And that is a great thing for us consumers.
Oh, and please, nobody give us that bollocks that Apple is a hardware company and that they just add OS X to the bundle and that they don't make money with their software. OS X has always been sold for EUR 129,00, which roughly equals the sales price of Windows 7 Professional. And we all know that Microsoft is EXTREMELY profitable. So just stop kidding yourself, folks. Apple actually makes most of its income with either software or via selling software and content through their iTunes and AppStore infrastructure. Apple in the year 2009 is more of a distribution channel like the Steam platform than they are a hardware company.
Psystar = One idiot with a dream
Have we seen any evidence that Psystar, Inc. is anything more that one idiot with a dream?
Legal bills don't have to be huge. Inventory was trivial. A/R was non-existent.
It's the only story I can think of: one idiot who thought he had found a way to beat "The System".
Have we seen any evidence that Psystar, Inc. is anything more that one idiot with a dream?
Legal bills don't have to be huge. Inventory was trivial. A/R was non-existent.
It's the only story I can think of: one idiot who thought he had found a way to beat "The System".
First one. IP rights need to be defended, no matter how insignificant the infrigment. Especially when it's another commercial entity that is infringing on your rights.
And bravo on a well executed Petitio Principii. Shows how much of a fool you are.
Wait, are you sure you want to make this claim ? You do understand that Apple is a publicly traded company and as such, it's financial information is available all over the Internet as it is publicly dissiminated every quarter. Hence, if someone wanted to prove how much of a fool you are, they could just.. oh I don't know... go look up Apple's last quarter revenue by product segments and show you how computer hardware accounts for 50% of their revenu and that software is a single digit percentage on their revenue sheet.
If I were you, I'd edit my post and remove such an idiotic comment before someone proves you wrong and destroys all your credibility.
Yeah, that's why Apple almost went out of business in the mid-1990's when it actually did allow it's OS to be put on other company's computers (motorola, power computing, umax). Right.
Ahhhh. The mythical German loophole that no software company is aware of. It lets businesses benefit from consumer protection laws. Invalidates copyright. Mocks software companies who bother to translate their licenses into German. Confounds Apple's lawyers. Slices. Dices. And can be brought up whenever all other arguments fail.
Apple actually makes most of their money selling hardware. It's not one of those things you have to take on faith or bollocks. Just check the financial statements. They are published quarterly. Not that this fact has anything to do with whether it is legal for PearC to copy and modify OS X without Apple's permission.
Should have listened to KnightWRX.
Nearly 50% of Apple's revenue comes from Mac sales alone.
Software and services account for a mere fraction of that, and are far outlcassed by iPod and iPhone sales. Apple makes the LEAST of its revenue on software and services.
Actually you are mistaken.
Microsoft got slapped down because they made a deal with all OEMs to include a Windows Licence even if Windows was not supplied on the computer.
That is anticompetitive and illegal in all states.
Apple makes most of their income through hardware sales. Their margins are roughly 200% on hardware.
BTW if the German supreme court ruled one way, then all Apple would have to do is appeal to the EU courts which would uphold the EU Copyright directive, effectively overturning the German court.
you talk about what MS does with software and windows 7 selling it on other systems and what apple does with pystar they are two total diffrent things. First MS Gets a share of what Dell HP Sony etc. make and gives it to windows for dist rights what pystar is basicly Robery they take copies of OS X and then selling it for them selfs they are crooks get over it.
i don't see psystar winning the florida case. hasn't there already been a similar court case in the past where apple won?
It does bring up an interesting point though: why has Apple not sued to stop Hypermeganet from doing exactly what they sued Psystar for doing?
Here's an interesting read on it all (and fairly recent, as it's from September): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb5dc348-9bf1-11de-b214-00144feabdc0.html?catid=99&SID=google
What I find of interest is this quote:
You'd have thought that Apple would have taken some type of action against them in the past 9-10 months (they started selling systems in February).
Edit - Also, someone can correct me on this, but I heard that under German law, if any part of the EULA is invalidated, the entire EULA is invalided. Can anyone confirm or refute that?
The Florida case is essentially a carbon copy of the original Psystar anti-trust case that was filed in California. Simply substitute Leopard with Snow Leopard and the result is the same. It failed then and its going to fail again (my personal prediction).
I cut off here to debunk Hypermeganets claim - The license is not only available after opening the box - it is available at any time before purchase at Apples website. They can make any claim they want - it doesnt mean that its actually going to float.
It took months (at least 4-5) to build a case against Pystar - and Psystar was really, really, overt about their actions. Apple can choose who they go after. Their first target was low hanging fruit so they could have precedent. We cannot imply anything from Apples silence regarding PearC - for all we know, they are the next target.
I dont think contracts work that way. Even if it did, it wouldnt trump copyright law or even international copyright law in the EU (which Germany is part of).
Apple can still file copyright claims against PearC since their hackintoshes are made probably using the same method that Psystar used to make their hackintoshes. They dont have to argue the legality of their EULA - They can bring it up as proof of their intent of how OSX is supposed to work and let copyright law do the rest.
Close but not quite. It wasn't that Microsoft was requiring OEMs include licenses on systems that then didn't actually have Windows installed. It was that Microsoft had negotiated royalties so that, even on systems where Windows wasn't installed (and no license was present), Microsoft was still getting a royalty payment, even though they had no legal right to one.
Thus, from a business perspective, if you're going to have to pay a royalty to Microsoft anyway for a system that wouldn't even include Windows, then you might as well have Windows be the OS on it. That's what Novell complained about, and what the EU ultimately smacked MS for.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023_3-204317.html
Germany has very stringent consumer-protection laws, something which the European Commission doesn't really touch upon. It would be interesting to see which would take precedent.
Remember too that while member nations have to sign off on the EU copyright law, they're still free to impose or exempt certain limitations, and there's also exceptions in place for laws in-place before ratification of the copyright law was required.
Well, according to the limited reading I did, the EULA has to be present at the time of sale between retailer and customer. This is in order to protect the consumer against any changes that may have been made to the EULA.
Thus, that's why a lot of people seem to debunk the "it's available online" argument. Plus, it appears that even if a consumer were able to access the EULA at the register when paying, there's no guarantee that the EULA online is the same as what's currently present when you go to install the software. Thus, the EULA being available online is irrelevant (this is just what I've seen stated for Germany, it's not my own personal opinion).
In regards to the license being available after you open the box (I'm guessing you're referring to when you go to install it), I think though that goes against the idea of you agreeing to it at the time of purchase with the retailer (once again, this is just from what I've read. I have absolutely no experience with this
)Since a person can't agree to the product's specific EULA when paying for it, the thinking apparently is that it's null-and-void. Whether that would pan out in court, I'm going to say I'd doubt it. But I'm sure if anyone is going to get that idea/concept thrown out, it'll be Apple, lol.
One thing of curiosity though: you mentioned that it took Apple 4-5 months to finally sue Psystar. If Hypermeganet is in fact essentially carrying out the same process, you'd have thought it wouldn't have taken Apple nearly as long to try and stop them, especially given their experience with Psystar. They sued Psystar after 4 months. Hypermeganet has been selling their systems for 10 months now, and Apple hasn't so much as peeped. :?
Here is a Wiki article on German copyright. I highlight the big ones:
Bolds mine. This seems to mean to me that Apple as the owner of OSX retains some rights such as the rights to derivatives (defacement). Apple would also be the only one that could profit from OSX...
Here is another case regarding the GNU license in Germany:
That sounds like you can only copy or modify or distribute with a licence from the owner. No license, no copying. It doesnt matter if the conditions were agreed to or not. And this was upheld on appeal.
Bolds mine. This seems to mean to me that Apple as the owner of OSX retains some rights such as the rights to derivatives (defacement). Apple would also be the only one that could profit from OSX...
Here is another case regarding the GNU license in Germany:
That sounds like you can only copy or modify or distribute with a licence from the owner. No license, no copying. It doesnt matter if the conditions were agreed to or not. And this was upheld on appeal.
This is referring to what are sometimes called "moral rights," a uniquely European aspect of copyright law. (There are some aspects of this in U.S. law, but not much). The idea is that if a guy creates a beautiful painting, he retains the right to prevent someone from spraypainting a moustache on it, using it in a ketchup commercial, etc. because it wouldn't be dignified
It is unlikely that this would be applied to software derivative works, as derivative works is a separate idea in copyright law. Of course, while I learned a bit about the European systems in law school, as a lawyer I've had no exposure to anything other than European patents, so I could be completely wrong.
I asked about this before, nobody can provide me anything on this statement other than that blanket statement. I dont think its that simple.
Not necessarily. A plausible scenario was that Apple chose to go after Psystar first since they were a bit more blatant and looked to be a easier kill. Not to mention that this was a US case which would be easier to tackle than suing a company overseas. Psystar sold their first clone on April 2008. Apple filed 3 months later. Looks like PearC started later - the first article that I find mention of PearC is early 2009. At best at the 10 month figure you quote puts them last year - after Psystar.
We also have to remember that Apple is not a company that likes to talk about their legal cases. They havent publicly commented or even talked about Pystar outside of the courtroom. The fact that they have yet to publicly talk about these guys comes to no surprise.
I conclude this: Psystar reared its ugly head in April 2008. Apple of course filed thinking this as a strait-forward case and file 3 months later. A few months later they learn about PearC. Apple is probably more interested in finishing this case and setting a precedent rather than involving itself in two cases one which is an international one. There is also the matter that Psystar has been really obtuse and been dragging their heels.
Could money be coming from the Bank of Redmond?
IF so, its going to be money down the drain....
Bill cannot stop the demise of Windows-any better than he can stop erosion-or the wind-it has had its day in the Sun-let it go out in dignity....er just let it go...
No, it's not easy, but as it's quite specific to german law there are some german books who deal with all the legal aspects of EULAs and stuff like that.
F.e.:
Koch, Frank A.: Handbuch Software- und Datenbankrecht, ISBN 3-540-00016-X
Koch, Frank A.: Computer-Vertragsrecht, ISBN 3-448-04813-5
Marly, Jochen: Softwareüberlassungsverträge, ISBN 3-406-48785-8
Mayer-Wegelin, Clemens: Käuferrechte bei Computerspielen - Technische Kopierschutzmaßnahmen und End User License Agreements. JurPC Web-Dok. 28/2009
In generall EULAs are part of the business conditions in germany. They are no seperate licence, but a part of the business conditions.
In germany business conditions have to be clear to the customer before he buys something. If any EULA is presented only after the purchase they cannot become part of the business conditions and aren't enforcable because of that fact.
Copyright laws are a totally different thing.
The German laws you a referring too are for CONSUMERS. PearC will be trialed as a company, which I believe in Germany is that any Civil contract between companies is legally binding. (I think, some guy had a link in another thread.)
And because Germany is part of the EU, they must adhere to EU policy. If they rule in favour against Apple, Apple can appeal to the EU directly. Which they have DMCA x200!
That said, we're assuming they sue under German courts and not under the EU courts.