Psystar Working on Mac Laptop Clone, Apple Files DMCA Charges

[Macmel]

You don't get support for your OS?
Honestly, how many of you have ever called an Apple representative over a software issue?. It's faster to do it yourself or even reformat and reinstall (which would be their only solution in most cases).
If updates is what you mean, I know people that are still running Panther and don't give a damn over it. It just works and that's what they want. I run panther without any problem ever, then I switched to Tiger and then I switched to Leopard. I could have done it without any update at all. No problem whatsoever and my computer works exactly the same. Time Machine?.
I had back-up utilities before that. Not so good-looking, but equally efective. If I were to buy a Psystar, software support would be the last thing to worry about. I think hardware support is more important (that's expensive). If OS stops working, (which I doubt because you can always go back to an early version that worked), put windows on it and still you have a computer after all.

 

[motulist]

Mapple? Are you confused?

No, he's not confused. I believe the confused one is you!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/46753/the-simpsons-mapple-store#x-4,vclip,1

 

[Jig]

The DCMA has clear exemptions for interoperability. Even if it was possible to argue that Psystar are breaking copy protiection (really doubtful) then these exemptions would likely apply.

Just corporate bullying a big company of a small one, as usual. But on this site, people will defend *anything* that Apple does, so it doesn't matter. Seriously, Apple could announce a program where, if you copy one of their disks, then they have the right to come round to your house and sacrifice your first-born, and there would still be people here saying 'how good this will be for Apple', or 'I'm sure Apple doesn't like doing this, but it is necessary for Apple to make a profit' etc.

 

[Trip.Tucker]

No, he's not confused. I believe the confused one is you!

http://www.hulu.com/watch/46753/the-simpsons-mapple-store#x-4,vclip,1

Ahhh. So the poster is confusing fiction with reality. Apple is Apple. Apple is NOT Mapple. Mapple, in the Simpsons episode, was used to avoid any lawsuits due to defamation.

Let me find the most obscure Apple reference, use it in a post on a forum and expect people to 1. accept it, and 2. immediately be familiar with it solely because I found it amusing.....no.

Silly.

 

[motulist]

Ahhh. So the poster is confusing fiction with reality. Apple is Apple. Apple is NOT Mapple.

I'm pretty sure you're confusing his joke with him being confused.

Let me find the most obscure Apple reference,use it in a post on a forum...

Dude, come on. Firstly, it's the simpsons, which is about as far from obscure as possible. Secondly, this clip is from the episode which just aired a couple of days ago, so it's fresh in everyone's mind. Thirdly, (as if that wasn't enough already) go look at the MacRumors front page sidebar and read the top headline in the Page 2 section. It's not at all an obscure reference, you just didn't happen to know of it yet. This type of thing happens to all of us every now and then, there's no need to act defensively and try to make the commenter of that reference look bad. Just make a quick self-effacing joke about how you can't believe you didn't know that was a reference and then move on.

Anyway, lets not get too far off topic.

 

[djgamble]

Fools. They're in court up against one of America's biggest companies; in my view they're not even out there to make a profit or a serious company, they're just out there to make a statement that they don't like Apple stopping people from making clones.

They'll go bust and they don't even care because their message is the important thing. Given their business model their overheads can't be big... they just grabbed a PC box, chucked some cheap cr@ppy bits in it and when somebody orders one (maybe 3 people max... seriously!) they can build a PC using the money from the order.

Same with a laptop, that's all they'd do... I could make one in less than an hour using standard PC laptop parts! It's not like they have engineers working day and night to produce an amazing and innovative Mac Clone, so it costs them nothing to have a web page! I'd guess that it's a 1 man company run by a lawyer who's representing himself... at the same time Apple's footing the legal costs (for decent lawyers) because they're bringing the case forward...

This would make it feasible to run a company and pay nothing for the court case. If they lose then they'll just shut down Pystar and continue their regular job as a lawyer (nothing lost).

If they win... well then they've made a remarkable statement that could shape Apple's future in a big way!

Either way I think they’re a toss...

 

[gnasher729]

The DCMA has clear exemptions for interoperability. Even if it was possible to argue that Psystar are breaking copy protiection (really doubtful) then these exemptions would likely apply.

They would of course only apply if the copy protection prevents interoperability for an otherwise legal use. You would be allowed to circumvent any copy protection measures that prevent you from running MacOS X on a G3 Macintosh or a G4 running at less than 867MHz (which is allowed by the license, but prevented by the Installer; methods to do that have even been published on MacRumors, completely legal). You are not allowed to circumvent any copy protection measures that prevent you from running MacOS X on a non Apple-labeled computer.

So if tomorrow MS decides to enter the hardware business and changes its EULA saying Windows can now only run in their own hardware, will that constitute being a monopoly? Can we say its the same thing with Apple practice right now?

What you are saying is a bit confused. First, Microsoft may or may not be in a monopoly position in the operating system market. Psystar claimed that Apple had a monopoly in the MacOS X market, but that turned out to be nonsense. It would be just as much nonsense to claim Microsoft had a monopoly in the Windows market. What matters is the operating system market. There Microsoft seems to have just under 90% market share, and Apple much less than 10%. Just under 90% is usually considered a monopoly, much less than 10% is not.

Since Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market, exactly the same anti-trust claims that Psystar made against Apple and that were thrown out would very likely be successful against Microsoft. If Apple increased the MacOS X market share to 50% or to 90%, then it might be possible for Dell to force Apple to license MacOS X. And if you haven't noticed, Microsoft has entered the hardware business a long time ago, just not the computer business.

Psystar has never defeated copy protection devices, the DMCA is completely irrelevant here. This late addition to the charge is an act of desperation, as Apple knows, they can't win and their EULA will be invalidated.

You may not have noticed, but it is Psystar itself who made that claim. Psystar stated in their counterclaims that Apple prevents MacOS X from running on non-Apple computers, and that Psystar added or changed code to make MacOS X work on their Psystar computers. Talk about digging your own grave.

We don't actually know whether there are any copy protection devices, but we know that Psystar itself made that claim. All that Apple has to do is to agree, and it becomes an "undisputed fact" that can be used against Psystar (so much for the quality of their lawyers).

Apple has a monopoly and that's not right. It seems a little hypocritical for Apple to sue someone for trying to make hardware that will run OSX (not making the OS itself) which Apple will get to sell when, at the same time, Apple is selling computers that will run Windows. I hate Windows, but I like having the option.

First, the court has decided just a few days ago that not only Apple doesn't have any monopoly, but Psystar did not even manage to produce any reasonable arguments for a claim that Apple might have a monopoly. Second, Microsoft _wants_ to sell Windows for every computer in the world. So here we have a copyright holder that fully agrees and encourages to run their operating system on an Apple computer. By allowing you to run Windows on a Macintosh, Apple only does what the copyright holder of that OS wants.

 

[arepadetrigo]

Competition is always good

Being a Capitalist, I like competition in the marketplace. I think Apple could use some competition and I know it would only benefit the consumer. Apple is ripping us all off. Some of you seem to like it. I LOVE Apple computers, and I cannot imagine Psystar making a better one. If they don't, the marketplace will clear them out. If they manage to make a better product for an affordable price, Apple deserves to go down anyway. My guess is that Psystar's consumer base would be different from Apple's anyway, so it wouldn't effect Apple that much. Apple has a monopoly and that's not right. It seems a little hypocritical for Apple to sue someone for trying to make hardware that will run OSX (not making the OS itself) which Apple will get to sell when, at the same time, Apple is selling computers that will run Windows. I hate Windows, but I like having the option.

 

[DAAAAAAAVE]

Apple does not have a monopoly. They sell an OS in the OS market. They sell computers in the computer market. They have an extremely small market share compared to M$. I agree that Apple are in a class of their own but not a market of their own. It is like saying windows has a monopoly on selling the Vista OS

 

[gnasher729]

But didn't the judge dismiss the countersuit? Or does that not matter?

All their claims stand. Whatever claims Psystar made in their countersuit, Apple can hold them to those claims. It is an unusual thing to happen; I would only expect this if one side employs amateurs as lawyers.

 

[rhpenguin]

You don't get support for your OS?
Honestly, how many of you have ever called an Apple representative over a software issue?. It's faster to do it yourself or even reformat and reinstall (which would be their only solution in most cases).

In my dealing with Apple reps, chances are I'd be the more knowledgeable. If I have a problem and can't get to my desktop, I fix it from single user mode. No need for a reformat if you have backups of your kernel and kernel extensions.

 

[mcnallym]

Apple does not have a monopoly. They sell an OS in the OS market. They sell computers in the computer market. They have an extremely small market share compared to M$. I agree that Apple are in a class of their own but not a market of their own. It is like saying windows has a monopoly on selling the Vista OS

Psystar also claimed that no alternatives to Mac OSX which is how trying to show was a monopoly, Yet they also offer Linux and Windows as alternatives to OSX on the OpenComputers, again shooting themselves in the foot.

It has also in previous cases been decided that a sole supplier for a product does not constitute a monopoly, and the supplier cannot be forced to help a competitor, or be forced to license there product to a rival.

 

[gdzb]

duh

one group of people is hung up on price
one group of people is hung on OS usability
one group of people is hung up on design and OS Usability
one group of people recognises that most companies aren't doing the above so the only way you can get option three is for paying a s*it load of money for it, if you don't like it wait a few years for the niche to be filled, in the meantime buy sony for a bit less and compromise or move on and think about more important things in your like (including changing your budget to accomodate apple)
the mac forum masses are group three, the mac masses are group four

(not all shops are H&M/Old Navy, or B&O)

 

[ddTaylor]

In the end, Psystar is pretty irrelevant compared to the osx86 project

Nonetheless, I really wish Apple would offer a lower cost desktop. I realize their business model is based on having ridiculously high margins that we all pay for, but I think Apple is really shooting themselves in the foot in terms of their potential market share

My point exactly...I have been touting a lower-cost Apple be it a desktop or a netbook for a long time. You should watch yourself here as a lower-cost Apple is sure to bring the ire of all the zealot Apple fans. Oh well...

We will never see a lower-cost Apple regardless of what people want as they may want it but they (myself included) still buy the egregiously over-priced MBP's MP's and MB's. We only have ourselves to blame.

D

 

[PDXoPDX]

It's amazing Psystar is even fighting this. I can't imagine a Windows OS cloner ever thinking that they could legally alter Windows, put it on their machines, and then market them for sale.

The big PC makers all have to negotiate w/ M$ for tweaks unique to the OS loaded on their systems.

I'm a big fan of creative freedom and consumer rights, but there ARE open source OS alternatives. Psystar either needs to pony up and license Apple tech or switch to open source alternatives. Jacking someone else's hard work seems like a great way to stifle innovation down the road for a quick buck today.

 

[Roderick Usher]

chucked some cheap cr@ppy bits in it

What evidence do you have that Psystar's machines are actually crappy? Are you just recycling what you've heard, or did you instantly reach this conclusion without any actual research? This is one step away from stereotyping all PC's as being made from bottom-barrel components, which has never been the case.

and when somebody orders one (maybe 3 people max... seriously!)

More than that, I think, since they're still in business.

The issue is one of legality, not quality. It's ridiculous to dismiss Psystar's products outright, based on flimsy, unsubstantiated claims. Apple is certainly taking them seriously enough, hmm?

 

[ddTaylor]

It seems to me there's at least two kinds of Mac user: one who appears attracted by the design factors, and another who's primarily motivated by OS X and perhaps internals value-for-money. I'm in the latter camp as it happens and so couldn't care less what the Psystars look like. I'm not alone in this attitude either I suspect. Laughing at a product simply on the basis of its looks seems a little silly then, but to each their own I guess.

Well said - my MBP and PB are GREAT and look and work flawlessly yet my Acer One with OS X runs just a nicely and was $348.88 with a 160GB HD and the extra memory I had from an upgrade increased the RAM to 1.5GB. Does it look as nice as any possible Apple NetBook? No. Does it run well and does it do what I need it to? Yes.

I know Apple makes huge margins based on a two-fold approach to computers - the design and the OS. I would be happy with a rock-solid OS and only tangentially interested in the aesthetics - but I guess I do not count - so long as you read these forums. OS X 10.5 was not nearly as stable of 10.4 right rom the box - at least for me. I think a lot had to do with the migration to x86 processors so I can understand the troubles although not ignore them completely.

D

 

[ddTaylor]

I completely agree. Psystar really didn't offer a performance benefit or substantial cost savings when compared to apple's current offerings. Citing the "need" for a mid-range tower really is a poor excuse for breaking the eulaand copy protection measures as many of the so named reasons for doing so can also be accomplished with upgrades to the hardware or peripherals. While video cards can't be upgraded in iMacs or macbooks, you do get what you pay for. If I pay for a ford, that doesn't give me the right to go steal a Ferrari engine no matter how overpriced I think the ford might have been.

That is a terrible analogy. I hate the fact that people throw out comparisons to other products. They are almost NEVER applicable. The car analogy is off the mark as you are assuming (yes - I KNOW what ASS U ME means) someone STOLE the other engine. If you BOUGHT the Ferrari engine and put it in your car, so what? You paid for it - just do not expect either Ford or Ferrari to service the hybrid car.

As for the EULA - most EULA's are not legally binding (please do a nexus-lexus search as well as you local law library) as the EULA is INSIDE the software and when you open the software to READ the EULA you can no longer RETURN the software - or the EULA is only visible AFTER the software is installed. Not to mention the fact that a EULA is a CIVIL contract and I use the word CONTRACT loosely as there are many questions as to its validity due to the way it is presented. The EULA simply states you are 'borrowing' the software - unless you break the EULA and then you no longer have the right to 'borrow' the software. That is the sticky point - as the software IS copy protected but once you pay for the right to USE the software - where does the company and its rules cross the line? The music industry tried to go after people who created re-mixes for PERSONAL use or to play at parties - that went nowhere. Provided you are NOT providing the software to others for free and you own a legitimate copy not previously installed - I see no reason Apple could go after the end user in any manor.

D

And, no - I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be...I simply read and research topics BEFORE I decide to post a reply lest I put my foot in my mouth - and yes, I have done that MANY times before. I learned from my mistakes - i really did.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I can tell you why. The DMCA act makes it illegal to circumvent effective copyright protection measures. I don't know about any effective copyright protection measures in Leopard, and it looks like Apple's lawyers didn't either, so they couldn't sue for DMCA violation.

In comes Psystar's counterclaims, claiming that Apple is a monopoly. Hidden in those counterclaims is the accusation that Apple added code to its operating system that makes it crash on non-Apple computers (apparently to support Apple's non-existing evil monopoly). In other words, Psystar itself _claims_ that Leopard contains effective copyright protection measures. All that Apple has to do is to agree with Psystar, and those "effective copyright protection measures" become reality, at least as far as the court is concerned. Anything that Psystar says in their court filings can be used against them, and that is exactly what Apple has done again.

Interesting point. I read your explanation for this in the other Psystar thread. It looks like Psystar shot itself in the foot and then reloaded.

 

[ddTaylor]

You bought a copy of the OS but you are still running it illegally. End of discussion.

Not true - and not exactly false, either. That has NOT been decided by the courts as of yet. You may be correct, although I doubt it.

D

 

[PDXoPDX]

As for the EULA - most EULA's are not legally binding (please do a nexus-lexus search as well as you local law library) as the EULA is INSIDE the software and when you open the software to READ the EULA you can no longer RETURN the software - or the EULA is only visible AFTER the software is installed. Not to mention the fact that a EULA is a CIVIL contract and I use the word CONTRACT loosely as there are many questions as to its validity due to the way it is presented. The EULA simply states you are 'borrowing' the software - unless you break the EULA and then you no longer have the right to 'borrow' the software. That is the sticky point - as the software IS copy protected but once you pay for the right to USE the software - where does the company and its rules cross the line? The music industry tried to go after people who created re-mixes for PERSONAL use or to play at parties - that went nowhere. Provided you are NOT providing the software to others for free and you own a legitimate copy not previously installed - I see no reason Apple could go after the end user in any manor.

Just to clarify, the way a lawsuit like this works is that many claims are brought in the initial stages of the dispute. Some are for posturing (scaring the sh#t out of the other side) and some are the heart of the dispute.

As far as I understand the suit filed against Psystar, the contract related EULA claim is in addition to DMCA and Copyright Act claims. The whole idea that EULAs are contracts of adhesion (the idea that you point out about not being able to agree until the software is installed) has been pretty much resolved in favor of their legality. I'm not at all trying to knock you. I'm just pointing out that there's a good deal of case law saying that for the time being EULAs won't be struck down as contracts of adhesion. Maybe that will change in the future, but courts aren't buying it due to the general idea that people are free to contract...even if they make a bad contract. I agree though that you can't say no to the EULA and go get an OS with a more agreeable EULA. This is a whole other issue though and why the courts won't touch it. It's like cell phone agreements. They're all pretty much coercive and bad for the consumer, but we agree because we have to to get a phone and courts don't want to poke the sleeping bear. Enough rambling.

Psystar is screwed on the Copyright Act claims since Apple's copyright on OSx is solid and Psystar is unquestionably infringing by selling the OS w/o a license from Apple.

Gnasher correctly points out that Windows is different b/c of their total OS marketshare and explicit desire to spread their OS as far as possible. That said Dell still needs to negotiate and license w/ Microsoft when it tweaks Windows to do things unique to its systems.

Like I said above it's not that I'm in the tank for corporations but it makes me worry that new solutions and software will be stifled in a marketplace where creators are forced to give up control against their will.

 

[motulist]

Psystar is unquestionably infringing by selling the OS w/o a license from Apple.

As I understand it, Psystar is buying a unique copy of OS X for every machine. If so, then you've got the heart of this issue completely wrong.

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

As for the EULA - most EULA's are not legally binding (please do a nexus-lexus search as well as you local law library) as the EULA is INSIDE the software and when you open the software to READ the EULA you can no longer RETURN the software - or the EULA is only visible AFTER the software is installed. Not to mention the fact that a EULA is a CIVIL contract and I use the word CONTRACT loosely as there are many questions as to its validity due to the way it is presented. The EULA simply states you are 'borrowing' the software - unless you break the EULA and then you no longer have the right to 'borrow' the software. That is the sticky point - as the software IS copy protected but once you pay for the right to USE the software - where does the company and its rules cross the line? The music industry tried to go after people who created re-mixes for PERSONAL use or to play at parties - that went nowhere. Provided you are NOT providing the software to others for free and you own a legitimate copy not previously installed - I see no reason Apple could go after the end user in any manor.

D

And, no - I am not a lawyer nor do I pretend to be...I simply read and research topics BEFORE I decide to post a reply lest I put my foot in my mouth - and yes, I have done that MANY times before. I learned from my mistakes - i really did.

So the EULA is useless? You can just click yes every time and not care what it says?

 

[pdjudd]

As I understand it, Psystar is buying a unique copy of OS X for every machine. If so, then you've got the heart of this issue completely wrong.

It doesn't matter - Apple does not sell full copies intended for non Apple Computers. All of their operating systems are sold as upgrades and are sold under terms that Apple can dictate to this regard. It doesn't matter what Psystar bought because they as a company cannot legally install the operating system - Apple doesn't allow it and systar has to modify Apple's IP to do that.

1) Psystar as a company cannot make money on trademark infringement - they have no rights to OSX unless Apple grants them rights - soemthing Apple has not done.

2) Try and scream about the EULA all you want but they are irrelivant - Pystar as a company has expectations to understand legal licensing of the product they wish to sell. Pstar tried to challenge the licensing under anti-trust (after violating them) and they failed miserably. The fact remains that Psystar, as a business, cannot redistribute IP without the owners permission. They are under the expectation as a business to know the copywrite of their product line.

The key thing to all of this is that Apple does not sell an OEM or a full unlimited licence of OSX to anybody. Period. OSX is sold in conjunction with an Apple branded computer (which Apple legally controls) and each iteration is sold as an upgrade to the previous one. These are the terms that Apple dictates and thats the way it is.

Microsoft actaully sells the same physical disc for its flavors of Vista or MS office. That doesn't mean that you can buy a basic upgrade, hack it, and sell it as a business with all the features of ultimate. You try and do that and MS will go after you for the exact same thing that Apple is doing. the only difference here is that MS offers OEM and full versions of Windows or Office. Apple does not nor are they under any obligation to do that.

 

[pdjudd]

As for the EULA - most EULA's are not legally binding (please do a nexus-lexus search as well as you local law library) as the EULA is INSIDE the software and when you open the software to READ the EULA you can no longer RETURN the software - or the EULA is only visible AFTER the software is installed.

This is irrelevant in this case since Apple's EULA for OSX is readily available on their website before purchase. Not to mention that Companies are not exempt from EULA's if they get in the business of reselling - they just cannot claim ignorance after the first violation - after that its willful neglect.

Individuals might get out of an EULA, but they have been found to be valid - and I would bet that they are considered contracts for businesses.