“It seems that Apple has grown tired of Apple-clone Psystar and has filed suit against the Florida company at the federal district court for the northern district of California,” Adrian Kingsley-Hughes reports for ZDNet.
“Apple, Inc., manufacturer of the well known line of computers and software, filed suit on July 3 in the federal district court for the northern district of California against Florida company Psystar, Inc. The suit alleges counts for violation of its shrink wrap license, trademark and copyright infringement,” Kingsley-Hughes reports.
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Jimbo von Winskinheimer” for the heads up.]
Gee, wonder who’s gonna win this one?
Holy crap! Didn’t see this coming!!
Conversation at Apple HQ:
“Let’s see, how do we want to royally screw these scoundrels?”
“Software Update?”
“Lawsuit?”
“Software Update?”
“Lawsuit?”
“Software Update?”
“Lawsuit?”
“[Sigh] Life is full of hard decisions.”
Saw this one coming a long ways off!
And I bet they never planned for this.
Dear Apple Ninjas,
Took you long enough…
Much love,
Nutcracker
@ Mark S.:
Sarcasm!
Steve Jobs Day Timer:
1. Wrap up OS X 10.5.4
2. Keynote WWDC
3. Open iPhone App Store
4. Launch iPhone 3G
5. Deliver iPhone 2.0 upgrade
6. Retool .Mac
7. Crush Psystar
Florida company Psystar, Inc. has just filed for a legal name change this morning in federal district court to “Scorched Hole In The Ground” because, “It just made more sense.” Apple attorneys were reportedly seen leaving today in a corporate jet from a Cupertino airfield headed to 10475 NW 28th St., Doral, Florida with 200 lb. bags of salt each.
I thought Microsoft demonstrated it was ok to rip off other people’s ideas and become a major corporation!
Well, its about time.
Wonder if they would have filed sooner if the clone had been more competitive.
No, I really did see a lawsuit coming over this when these junky boxes hit the market.
Thing is I am amazed that it took apple this long to file suit.
@ Nutcracker, you’ve never watched cats stalking their prey, have you?
they be openin’ up a can o’ whupass….
Apple probably was waiting for Psystar to put the noose around their own necks.
Psystar issuing software updates and an XServe rip-off ought to give Apple plenty of ammo to shoot ’em down.
How’s that for mixed metaphors!
The reason it took so long is most likely due to Apple having sent a couple three C&D;letters and adding Psystar’s refusal to set it. Either the people involved are incredibly stupid to think that a multi-billion dollar copyright holder and decades of software license legal precedence would not be enough to pound them into a hole into the ground, or they are really, really wealthy… most likely both.
And another thing… Apple waited for Psystar to ramp up and commit more time and resources, so it’ll hurt them even MORE when Apple goes after them.
This should make fraidy cats of any other potential copy cats out there.
Aaahahahaha !!!
I normally detest lawyers, but in this case …
One comment from Psystar’s forum:
“These computers are a joke.
I have one on my desk. Not only does it sound like my lawnmower gone berserk, it has crashed every time I try to open Safari or Mail.
I hope Apple shuts you down fast. You are ruining a perfectly good OS by putting it in cracker jack machines. Shame on you.
Now people who WOULD have switched to Apple are going to have a bad taste after biting into your FAKE apples!
Thank goodness I still have my 2 Mac Pros”
It’s all about timing.
These things need to evolve and move at their pace. Apple’s Legal Big Cats stalk their pray, collecting information and evidence. When the time is right and the pray is relaxed thinking they are getting away with something and maybe even get a bit cocky (OSX Server) Clone. It’s time to slap them down and in a major way. Psystar is not likely to put up much of a fight, they’ll likely pull all Mac OS references and stop selling MacOS X Hack systems to protect the Windows & Linux part of the business and their cash reserves.
Don’t except Psystar to put up much of a fight. I wouldn’t even put money on Psystar filing any type of counter claim, (except maybe the monopoly card (LOL)). Hell Apple may win by summery judgement.
this whole thing was so blatantly illegal by pystar that is makes one wonder if they were trying to achieve something larger – like bringing to the forefront the issue of getting apple to open its OS to other manufacturers.
While you have to protect your intellectual property, there is a terrifying downside to this lawsuit. What if Apple loses? What if the Microsoft way is the only natural way to do business in the eyes of the Judge? What if he thinks Apple is abusing it’s OS X monopoly?
Elected or appointed Judges aren’t necessarily bright. They are political animals first, Judges second.
What if Apple has to license OS X?
If I ever see a Dell with OS X on it, I will switch to pen and paper.
Stoke up the coals and let the roasting begin.
Comment from: Crazylegs
this whole thing was so blatantly illegal by pystar that is makes one wonder if they were trying to achieve something larger – like bringing to the forefront the issue of getting apple to open its OS to other manufacturers.
Now, do you really want OS X to turn into another Windows or Linux? Control, control, we must have control… then and only then, does it run like it should.
As for the lawsuit… yes, seek and destroy… no one lives!.
@ Al
Yup, it’s a dodgy business.
Psystar defence: Apple computer run ANY OS on their Macs (and advertise the fact). Why should not Psystar operate an identical business model to Apple Computer?
Psystar: win.
Dell and every box maker on the planet rush to market computers that run ANY OS (in other words, cheap Mac clones).
Apple: Mac sales slump amid the new competition. OS X sales sky-rocket.
Um, there’s no OS X without Macs. The main reason why OS X works so well is that it’s optimized for Macs.
“Yup, it’s a dodgy business.”
I thought was Chrysler LLC.
Not surprisingly, http://www.psystar.com is down. They’ve gone to ground.
@Al
If they are forced to license OSX, I have the perfect solution for them.
First spin off the software department, and in preparation for licensing OSX to all who wish to license it.
Second price the licences so high that it would make Apple’s hardware division is a break even company.
Third finaly open the license to all companies that wish to become slaves to their new master.
Under that system it financially doesn’t matter (to Apple shareholders) who makes the hardware, as there ends up being very little profit in it.
I wonder just how lone it be before there web site goes dark… hours or days?
Maybe Apple waited so long because they wanted people to find out for themselves what a steaming pile of crap those Psystar computers are. All they did was hijack the work that Apple put time, effort and money into and slap it into bargain-basement hardware. The poor saps who got suckered into buying those things get what they deserve.
By the way Apple has gotten itself into a nice position… it’s clients are defenting the big guy i.e apple, at the expence of the little guy.
Plus the client pays more cause Apple has no direct competer and that’s a good thing in the minds of the client!
Wonder what M$ would pay to be in Apple shoes about now! <GRIN>
It’s a dangerous game for Apple.
IBM had absolutely no luck defending against PC clones. If Phystar goes the distance, it’s hard to see Apple being successful here. The result could be a court order for Apple to open up Mac OS X.
What’s illegal about what Phystar are doing, running a legally purchased OS on an industry standard computer, which is basically what Apple sells?
What if Microsoft put a clause in their license agreements, that you could only run Windows on hardware vendors approved by Microsoft? Just how well to you think that would stand up in court?
And if Apple do establish the precedent that it’s OK for an OS vendor to control which hardware their OS runs on, Just how long would Apple last if Macs could not run Windows? It would be the beginning of the end for Apple.
@@ Twenty Benson
“The main reason why OS X works so well is that it’s optimized for Macs”
I agree. As us Mac-heads never cease to remind remind anyone who can be bothered to listen… It’s the software, stupid!
But, no doubt Dell would make a much smoother job of running it than Psystar. The interesting question is – what would Apple do if their OS X market-share doubled in a few months?… there would be one hell of a lot of new customers *seriously* pissed off with Apple if they attempted to wreck non-Mac OSX use with a software update.
Monopolists can’t stand when there is competition. That drives down prices and forces them to keep up with technology and compete in the market place. That is what makes the PC market great and why Apple owns maybe 5%. Monopolies steal from consumers and force them to purchase sub-standard equipment at premium prices.
Here is hope that democracy will stand and the judges will not nullify the constitution even when paid off by Apple. Everyone knows Apple can’t live with competition, and using the courts to put companies out of business is the route for loser companies. This looks like SCO suing IBM for the same reasons. Lets hope that Apple goes the same way that SCO went, down the toilet where it belongs.
@Ampar
“Florida company Psystar, Inc. has just filed for a legal name change this morning in federal district court to “Scorched Hole In The Ground” because, “It just made more sense.” Apple attorneys were reportedly seen leaving today in a corporate jet from a Cupertino airfield headed to 10475 NW 28th St., Doral, Florida with 200 lb. bags of salt each.”
Priceless! Funniest thing I’ve read in a while. Thanks.
Apple cannot win this.
They will solve this in the time honoured way, by settling and buying Psystar. The purpose of filing a suit is to start those negotiations.
If I was Apple I’d devise a way to benefit Apple and at the same time give the law-breakers (like iPhone 1.0 jailbreakers) a way to go legit, like giving the cloners the choice of A) shutdown your operation and use your talents to work for us back in Cupertino; or B) Never work again.
@Acquisitions
I don’t think buying Psystar would achieve anything. This is not about a two-bit box maker… what’s being tested by law are a handful of words in Apple’s software licence. If those few words don’t stand up in court… Apple becomes a fundamentally changed company – overnight.
Not looking good for Apple.
@Dangerous game
The diff being that IBM didn’t control the software or (most) of the hardware, they only controlled the BIOS. Other companies reverse-engineered the BIOS but made it sufficiently different to get past the legal stuff and sell anyways.
Psystar isn’t doing that with OSX, they are selling Apple’s software…
I don’t see this forcing Apple to license (the Monopoly card) but I wonder if it will be the lawsuit that breaks the EULA… it may end up that anyone can install OSX and PsyStar can sell it alongside their machines, they just won’t have an OEM license.
You ever notice how people like to add “realist” to their names in an attempt to give their highly debatable (and usually somewhat cynical) opinions more weight? Let’s see if this works:
“Psystar is violating the OS X license, and should rightfully be sued to smithereens. After which Apple should buy the company’s remains and convert them into a toilet paper roll manufacturing division or something. Oh, and Steve should be able to personally destroy any remaining Psystar computers with a sledgehammer, due to their distressing lack of design beauty.”
There, how did that come across? Remember, I’ve got “realist” in my name, so my opinion is better than yours!
Mac Realist,
“Lets hope that Apple goes the same way that SCO went, down the toilet where it belongs.”
Do you need some company down in your sewer,
Shit for Brains?
@Mac Realist –
Your comment is so full of self-contradiction, misinformation, and bad comparisons, there’s not enough space in this forum to begin to explain them all.
Let’s just say your last point is completely off the mark. SCO has no case since no SCO proprietary code ever made it into the open source Linux source code distributed by IBM. Even with the money and might of MSFT behind it, time and again SCO failed to provide one shred of evidence to support its case, despite Torvalds repeated challenge. Last I checked, Psystar is not even an authorized reseller of Mac OS X, never mind installing it on non-Apple hardware and making a profit on top of it without profit sharing with Apple. Psystar’s actions are more akin to say, IBM installing HP-UX on its Unix servers and selling them without HP’s permission.
This has nothing to do with this post…
I found a site with a pic of Wall-E and EVE as the mac vs pc commercial with Wall-E as the PC. If you’ve seen the movie, you KNOW that is some serious bullshit! So the pic was bad enough, the comments were enough for me to say something. Of course I was met with the same “All Mac users are elitist assholes/faggots” argument. If anyone feels the needs to unload on some “PC elitists” head on over here and fire away!
The other reason Apple waited this long, is that they wanted Pystar to sell a small but appreciable number of systems. This has a twofold effect:<ul>
<li>Apple gets triple actual damages for willful infringement. And that’s at Apple’s retail sales price, not what it cost Pystar to make the systems. And the hoot is, that anyone pathetic enough to have bought a Pystar system in the first place would never have shelled out the bucks for say, an iMac, in the first place. Wooot wooot. And with Pystar having to pay that much, it means they will have to fold unless they settle quickly and cleanly.</li>
<li>Apple also sows a nice crop of people who will be burned by theie decision to buy an illegal clone. Those buyers will have NO support and virtually no resale value. They will bitch and moan vocally when the next Pystar comes around, and remind people that by going out on a limb, you can fall, it happened before etc. Nothing like creating a few examples….</li></ul>
Let’s go back before DOS. IBM had a monopoly, and was often described as a benevolent dictator (compared with Microsoft which was just called a dictator).
IBM had their monopoly with their mainframes. They got smacked down and part of the judgement was that their hardware side had to pay full price, the same price non-IBM companies would have to pay, for software, and the same for software. Basically, IBM could not “give” discounts on stuff from one division to another division. Each division had to pay the full market value for stuff from another division, to “level the playing field.”
If this same thing happened to Apple, in the split-the-company scenario above, the software division would have to charge the hardware division the same it would charge Dell or HP for the OSX license to go on said hardware. No cheap discounts to make it all come out in the hardware division’s favor.
I think Apple is taking the right tack with psystar.
Afterall, how hard is it for someone to understand that Apple makes OS X and has created a license for its use? As the company who invented the product, Apple have every right to keep it on machines THEY themselves approve of, or not at all.
And to those constantly droning on about Apple ‘freeing’ OS X – if you want it so much, buy a Mac! What’s the point in demanding something Apple aren’t likely to do? It makes you look like some bitter, envious twit!
You should ask Apple to improve OS X, and not water it down on a mishmash of third party hardware. Don’t you remember how fast Steve shut down the previous cloning attempt, eh?
OS X is, and should be, part of the Apple experience, provided on Apple hardware – on Apple’s TERMS – not psystar’s, not anyone else’s.
The bottom line is, as OS X is an Apple property, Steve has no obligation to some vocal minority who will likely never buy his computers anyway.
And to that, current Mac sales figures speak for themselves, don’t they?
Psystar is nothing more than a front for other companies that want to test the legal waters with Apple without incurring their wrath, or scrutiny from thee press.
This is going to be very interesting and could define the future. Pystar has legal precedent in their favor in that it was recently ruled that a manufacturer cannot stop the computer owner from installing whatever software they want. Pystar is indeed blurring the lines, but if Apple loses it could herald a new era of Apple clones. Apple could foreseeably end up with no choice but to offer legal licenses to 3rd party assemblers. Whether that is good or bad … history will decide. A serious caveat is whether Pystar has enough in their coffers to go into legal battle with Apple without going broke.
Well let’s get one thing clear a few people seem to think that Apple has a Monopoly in something. Apple as no monopoly in anything. Because Apple created and owns Mac OS X (it is their IP and product) you can’t charge the owner of a product or IP with a monopoly of their own product. Mac OS X is a computer OS and Mac OS X does not occupy a monopoly position in the Computer OS Market which is what Apple would have to have. Even if you got the court to agree that the Mac OS X were a Per Se Market unto itself, Then you’d need to show that Apple abused it’s Monopoly Position to artificially drive up the price. (Like for like hardware and software Apple is not price gouging customers and has not conspired to raise prices. So, Apple as made no Anti-Trust violations.
Apple has the right to control, restrict and dictate what hardware it’s OS can legally be run on. Because, 1) Mac OS X is only fully licensed to an Apple hardware Systems (read your licenses agreements) 2) All Retail copies of Mac OS X are purchased as upgrades to a fully licensed copy that is only sold with a New Apple Macintosh computer (read the EULA with a retail copy of Mac OS X). 3) Installing Software upgrades in place of a fully licensed version of software has been a crime and has always been upheld by the courts as a crime from the dawn of the software licenses agreement and upgrades.
If Apple wants to they can end up owning PsyStar.
Attorneys love to use popular culture to try and win long shot cases without ever reviewing the actual laws, in this case the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
A Monopoly in and of itself is not illegal nor is it subject to breakup or regulation. You have to objectively ask 1) does Apple have a 95% or greater share in the broader market. 2) is Apple price gouging, is Apple involved in price fixing 3) or other questionable negative market effecting behavior.
Lets face it, Shyster is stealing Apple’s IP.
They are not an authorised Apple hardware seller, all the have done is bought aload of boxed versions of OSX and made their own hatchet job shit macs from cheap Chinese components.
Apple is a hardware and sofware business, they are totally unique in that they make the whole widget. Which is the reason why the Mac OS and hardware work so well compared to any other pc maker.
The secret is the software, and you can bet your ass that Apple will protect that with its $9 billion cash reserves.
This legal case has no legs.
It’s written in black and white on Apple’s Ts and C’s – shtstar hasnt got a leg to stand on.
And if by some miracle shitpc wins, then this opens the door for any backstreet engineer to make hardward for any OS without consent… and that will open a whole lot of trouble for the pc and software business.
“If those few words don’t stand up in court… Apple becomes a fundamentally changed company – overnight.”
Which is why Apple will settle and/or acquire the company rather than risk letting it go through to a judgement which ultimately others would be able to rely on.
“The diff being that IBM didn’t control the software or (most) of the hardware, they only controlled the BIOS.”
As history says, Think before that. Think mainframe cloners, think any company which has ever tried to make this kind of thing stick. I’m not aware of a single one who has done so and won.
Psystar is not trying to steal any Apple IP, or cheat Apple out of payment for OS licenses by copying them and not paying, they’re re-selling a product Apple sells at retail.
Imagine for example if you try to restrict a car you sell to using only dealer supplied parts. Sorry, that’s not legal in the US. Imagine if GM said you could only run your car on Exxon special GM gasoline if you wanted the warranty to hold, and say it’s the same as regular gas in it’s formulation but twice the price. That’s not legal either. Say for example a company pissed Microsoft off and Microsoft wrote into the Windows license that Windows could not be run on that vendor’s hardware. Sorry, not legal either. Now replace Microsoft with Apple in the previous sentence and assess Apple’s chances in court.
Apple sells an OS as a standalone product. Then they are trying to tie another product (The Mac hardware) to it. That’s just not going to fly.
The bottom line on the boards seems to be that competition is always good-EXCEPT when it’s competition for Apple.
re: f I was Apple I’d devise a way to benefit Apple and at the same time give the law-breakers (like iPhone 1.0 jailbreakers) a way to go legit
—-
Apple already have a way for iPhone hackers to go ‘legit’…
…it’s called the iTunes app store!
Some very funny and entertaining posts here. I think Psyster took a calculated risk and Apple knows exactly what the score is and wasn’t anxious to play along. I wonder if the owner of Psyster has actually turned a profit by now, if so, and if it’s not too big a profit, he gets sued, files bankruptcy, and walks away with a small nest egg.
Brau, what fantasy story did you get that from. Apple holds copyright, that’s all they need to put them out of business. They are not just merely running OSX, they are selling it without permission from Apple. That’s called stealing. It’s called a license agreement. Also Psystar is not an Apple system therefore your claim is mute about OSX can legally run on any Apple system. Apple is not a Monopoly but they do have the rights to there property. Also Psystar modified Apple’s OS, another violation to get there system working on basically what amounts to a piece of junk clone PC. And not very well I might add. Long shot, more like an open and shut case. I’m sure Apple sent them many seise and desist orders. But Psystar got cocky and thought Apple wouldn’t go after them. HA!! Bye, bye Psy!
“1) does Apple have a 95% or greater share in the broader market. 2) is Apple price gouging, is Apple involved in price fixing 3) or other questionable negative market effecting behavior.”
Apple has 95% or more of the market for Mac OS X compatible hardware.
2) We all know Apple is price gouging. Otherwise Psytar and Apple machines would cost the same and nobody would consider a clone. Apple wants a return to the days where is has no competition for OS X compatible hardware so it can set prices where it likes.
3) By denying consumers an alternative, consumers are being harmed. It doesn’t really matter if you think the alternative being offered is crap. if some people who don’t value pretty cases are being forced to overpay for the same components in a pretty case, they’re being harmed.
Apple will not win this one.
“They are not just merely running OSX, they are selling it without permission from Apple.”
Not so, they are selling genuine licenses. If they were stealing OS X, it would be an open and shut case.
“mute”
Moot moot moot. If you had any legal knowledge you’d know the difference between mute and moot. So give up on the airmchair legal analysis, you’re not good at it.
Few others on the list… a matter of days…
If i CREATE something, this thing is MY monopoly! Of course it is!
Suppose the hardware would have been okay. .? Would that have made a difference??
Ignorance Abounds wrote: “”They are not just merely running OSX, they are selling it without permission from Apple.” Not so, they are selling genuine licenses. If they were stealing OS X, it would be an open and shut case.
Nothing prevents you from reselling a product, correct.
Pystar is not reselling OS X. They are buying it, altering it and selling it again as OSX.
At the risk of waaaay too many analogies in this thread, you can not purchase a copyrighted book at your local bookstore, change a couple of sentences and then resell the product. And you can’t sell it as some other title either, because 99.9% of it is not yours in the first place.
This is such a surety you can’t even call it an open and shut case. It was never open to begin with.
To SirROM:
(You’re quite welcome.)
I guess we can go ahead and pronounce it “Pissed her”.
“you can not purchase a copyrighted book at your local bookstore, change a couple of sentences and then resell the product”
Sure you can, you can buy a book and scribble notes all over it, rip half the pages out and re-sell it for whatever you can get. You can re-bind it in leather, you can sell it as a doorstop. You can chop it into ceiling insulation, or reprocess it into a fire log and sell that. You can buy a million books and treat them in that way if you want to.
What you cannot do is pull out a photocopier and start making your own copies and sell them.
@ Humm
1) Apple does not have a 95% market share of the broader Personal Computer market. The Federal Court will not buy the Per Se market argument that you and many other try and use. A Mac is a personal computer and the legal convenance out weighs the myth that the Mac is in it’s own Per Se Market.
2) Apple’s prices for like PC Hardware/Software bundle falls into the more then competitive price range for the broader Personal Computer market. Compare Apple’s prices with Dell, Lenovo, HP prices for like hardware/software bundles (make sure your price shopping comparison includes the cost of Windows Vista Ultimate for your OS needs).
3) all customers have a choice, they can buy a Personal Computer from Apple with Apple’s Bundled software or you can buy a Personal Computer from Dell, Lenovo, HP or the countless other Personal Computer makers with their bundled software offerings, So there is no case for harm.
Any attorney going in to argue for Psystar better have an argument much better prepared and come at it from a far different angle then the Anti-trust monopoly argument otherwise it’s going to be a boring and very short case with Psystar closing up shop in very short order.
@ Clyde
HP, Dell, Lenovo and the countless other PC markers are all Apple’s competition. And all Mac users will agree that competition is good. Psystar is not engaged in competition they are engaged in theft.
@ Why
Apple does not sell a standalone copy of Mac OS X. If you read the EULA what you will clear find is all retail copies of Mac OS X
are in fact upgrades to the full version of Mac OS X bundled with the Macintosh Personal Computer.
So Psystar is selling upgrades as fully licensed copies of Mac OS X which they are not. This makes the sell of Mac OS X by Psystar a theft from Apple and a license fraud on their customers.
Everyone assumes and everyone wants to apply myths to the laws. The facts are Apple has the right to sell Mac OS X only to owners of Apple Branded hardware without ever violating a law any where in the world. They have the right to stop only one from reselling their software product to run on unauthorized hardware.
@ Everyone that thinks Psystar stands a snowballs chance in hell of winning this.
Apple Legal Team knows the laws and they know what due process they need to follow to make sure that they’ve given the little guy many opportunities to escape before going to court. By presenting all the per court escapes the Apple’s Legal team demonstrates malicious intent, willful disregard and a pattern of continuing violation of Apple’s rights. So, when Apple asks the court to issue an injunction to stop Psystar from selling and pre-installing Mac OS X on their systems, the court is more likely to grant Apple’s request. Psystar’s argument will have little impact on the judges decision to grant the injunction.
clyde,
“The bottom line on the boards seems to be that competition is always good-EXCEPT when it’s competition for Apple.”
If Psystar wants to compete with Apple, then let them develop their own damn operating system. THAT would be competition.
What if someone takes the software that’s on a Nokia phone, builds a knock off of that phone and installs a modified version of the software (Windows Mobile, Java, Symbian, or some other proprietary OS, etc) and charges money for it without permission from the either vendor? Is that legal?
The argument being forwarded in Psystar’s defense is that anyone has the right to take any software that wasn’t written by them and modify it to run on any other hardware device and then make a profit off of it. Or that the original software developer should be forced to license their software to anyone so that others can make a profit from it by bundling it with different hardware options. So then is Microsoft or Sun forced to allow their software to run on any mobile device and then support that (because without support you can’t really say that the software would run properly after, say, an update)?
Perhaps anyone is allowed to install any software on any device that will run it (on its own accord), but certainly that doesn’t include the ability of a third party to modify the software so it will run on certain devices and then sell it at a profit without some kind of consent from the owner of the intellectual property. Even if Apple were to lift any kind of system checks that the software does before initial install or subsequent updates, you can’t say that the device drivers, as just one example, wouldn’t need tweaking or outright insertion into the software to make it function properly on other hardware. And where does one draw the line when altering software that isn’t theirs in the first place and is not open source?
I agree that OS X or Apple Mac’s need competition. That’s what Dell provides. And HP.
My nuts are itchy!
In the dictionary, under “Retard”, the entry says “See Psystar”
“make sure your price shopping comparison includes the cost of Windows Vista Ultimate for your OS needs”
Sure, since that’s the only way a Mac could win any price comparison. But even the cost of a Vista ultimate license may not be enough these days. Better throw in Photoshop and Microsoft Office Pro just to be sure the Mac wins.
“Apple does not sell a standalone copy of Mac OS X. “
The EULA allows you to install and use the software. You are also allowed to modify any open source components of the software that you like(i.e. most of the kernel).
As the term “Apple Labelled” is undefined, it presumably takes on it’s plain meaning, a machine with a label with a picture of an apple on it.
The EULA specifically contemplates that you may modify the open source components and disclaims system damage due to that.
the EULA specifically contemplates that an upgrade may be used as a complete replacement for software and has no language requiring that you be updating a previous version. In fact the online store doesn’t even call it an upgrade.
So Apple’s going to have a uphill battle on the modification issue unless they can show Psystar needed to modify non open source components to make this work.
There are downsides of using an open source OS kernel as the core of your OS and running it on a commodity PC platform and trying to still claim that it’s proprietary.
The important issue however remains that “apple labelled” issue and whether an OS vendor can restrict use of a shrink wrapped standalone OS to a particular subset of hardware it is capable of running on.
As no-one has ever successfully defended the position Apple is taking and many have lost in exactly the same circumstances, we’ll probably be looking at a more open Apple in the near future.
For Apple this seems like a Hail Mary, they figure that going down fighting, even without much chance is better than just giving in and opening up the OS to all players.
This has been mentioned in passing in several messages here, but I think it needs to be stated more bluntly.
If Psystar was just selling a Mac-compatible box on which you could install a boxed copy of Mac OS X that you purchased yourself, they might, might, have a case.
But Mac OS X doesn’t work like that. OS X will only work on a Mac. So Psystar hacks the OS up so it will run on their systems and installs it for you.
If Psystar was just selling a Mac-clone, maybe they could get away with it. But no court is going to give them a pass for hacking OS X without Apple’s permission and then selling it for a profit.
As someone said, if Psystar actually won this thing, Katie bar the door. It would shake the notion of intellectual property down to its foundations. Which is why it won’t happen.
——RM
“Or that the original software developer should be forced to license their software to anyone so that others can make a profit from it by bundling it with different hardware options. “
No, their best argument is they only touch the open source stuff, which they are legally allowed to modify.
“doesn’t include the ability of a third party to modify the software so it will run on certain devices and then sell it at a profit without some kind of consent from the owner of the intellectual property.”
Don’t you get it? Much of the Mac OS X kernel is open source. Apple doesn’t own it, and sure can’t stop anyone modifying it.
@”@Demon”
So Apple’s going to have a uphill battle on the modification issue unless they can show Psystar needed to modify non open source components to make this work.
If they’re selling the FrankenOS that’s the version commonly available, my understanding is that the Finder is one of the things that had to be changed. So, yes, they would have modified non-open source components.
I doubt you can get Mac OS X to run on non-authorized hardware just by diddling with Darwin.
——RM
“But no court is going to give them a pass for hacking OS X without Apple’s permission and then selling it for a profit.”
Read the EULA. Apple gives you permission to hack the OS. At least the open source bits. If Psystar is smart, that’s all they touched.
“I doubt you can get Mac OS X to run on non-authorized hardware just by diddling with Darwin.”
Sure, think that. or google for hackintosh and educate yourself as to just how little it takes.
I read Apple’s complaint. Psystar is in bad shape!
clyde,
Please give Bob a hand.
“I read Apple’s complaint. Psystar is in bad shape!”
Basically in a lot of words it says “Waah! Waah!, we sold Psystar copies of Mac OS X and they did something we don’t approve of with them Waah! Waah!”
If Psystar can get the “Apple labelled” clause in the EULA overturned, Apple is done. If not, tough luck Psystar.
From the article:
“[UPDATE 07/15 14:15pm PDT: A note to those who think that this suit is about EULAs … Psystar did a LOT more than breach the terms of the EULA. The company, through its own admission, modified the copyrighted work, then distributed those modifications without license and for commercial purposes. The company also used at least one Apple trademark in its marketing.
If this was just about the EULA, Apple’s case might not be that strong (remember, the EULA’s never been tested in court), but this goes way beyond the EULA.]”
If, as one person earlier suggested, Psystar actually has the cash to ride this out, why did they not go the legal route first? Why didn’t they just sue Apple and argue that the OS X EULA represents an anti-trust violation? Or that the hardware and software should be decoupled or Darwin decoupled from the GUI (akin to MS being forced to decouple IE from Windows)?
Either they were hoping to gain enough money to weather the legal storm by selling clones (seriously?) or they didn’t consider the legal strategy as being a successful one and were hoping Apple wouldn’t call their bluff.
In any event, the strategy they chose was risky at best. Obviously they couldn’t just make a patch to OS X and bundle that with the machine because OS X wouldn’t install once it did a system check. And how do you write software that overwrites software that is yet to be installed? So they went down the path of altering the OS. And, as has been pointed out, they didn’t just alter Darwin. The OS isn’t that simple and there are dependencies in the GUI that must be overcome. In any event, most of the OS isn’t Darwin and therefore altering it (even if you didn’t touch the closed-source portion) and selling a package including it is fraught with legal peril (and it just opens them to all kinds of liability). See where the decoupling strategy would have been much wiser? Maybe they could have gotten a judge to force Apple to release two different layers of OS X, the Darwin layer and the GUI layer. But I think they knew that wasn’t going to happen. So it beggars the question: just what were they thinking? That they’d be inundated with orders for their Dell-like systems and hope to gain the cash to fight the good fight? And why not just sell the software if your goal is to open the software to run on anything? Why try to mimic Apple by making an all-in-one product? You could sell the software with a recommended list of hardware it will work on. There’s no money in hardware anyway, unless you mark it way up, which defeats the whole argument that this type of competition will drive down prices.
But instead of arguing concepts in a courtroom as a plaintiff, they will be defending themselves from infringement and damages. Dumb. If your argument has merit, get the capital and go after Apple first, then build your boxes. Your boxes aren’t going to raise the capital for you and otherwise you are just picking the wrong fight. In either case, without the $$, you’re cooked.
I found a stick. I’m no longer itchy.
Well Bob, I’m sure everyone here is relieved to hear that. I know I sure will sleep better tonight. That is, if I don’t think about itching.
Why do people keep o sisting that Apple dom’t have the right to keep their OS for their computers as if it’s the norm for operating systems to be a separate entity to the hardware. That’s an ignorant assumption. As far as I know, all computer manufacturers pre Windows had their own OS and that includes Apple. Windows is sold as a stand alone product to go on any compatible PC. M$ don’t make a PC. Apple still have the same business model they always had. UP hand their own OS. So do Sun. So just because M$ do it one way doesn’t mean Apple has to follow suit.
And to whoever thinks Macs and Psystars have the same innards, gheez, get a brain will ya!
here’s one thing people fail to see here and that is the fact that
sorry about all the typos
“sorry about all the typos”
Typing while terminally stupid has been known to cause that.
“modified the copyrighted work, then distributed those modifications without license and for commercial purposes.”
And as you all probably know by now, you can install an “as shipped by Apple” DVD on a PC today with the right EFI emulation, a few drivers and and external hacks. And that’s what Psystar does. They don’t change your Mac OS X code in any way.
Also remember the EULA is just that, an EULA, not a reseller license agreement and psystar is not the end user.
Apple with all it’s alternative pleading even seems to recognise that claiming the EULA was breached by psystar rather than the end customer might be a problem.
Has anything been stolen from Apple? No, the OS is brought and paid for. They’ve just lost the possibility of making a hardware sale to go along with the software sale they already made.
Can Apple win this? Probably not.
“Can Apple win this? Probably not.” (iCal’ed)
STFU, clueless git.
I wonder what’s to stop Psystar, of any box-maker in future selling “Open OS” boxes? They wouldn’t even have to mention ‘Apple’ or ‘Mac’ by name, just ‘Runs ALL major OS’s’
With Microsoft’s Vista problems, any big box-makers like Dell could see “Open OS” systems as a way of revitalising hardware sales. They needn’t sell OS X either… just offer a $50 rebate to the customer on proof of purchase of ANY OS.
This David versus Goliath case could be a massive game-changer.
@ Twenty Benson
“what’s to stop Psystar, of any box-maker in future selling “Open OS” boxes?”
Psystar needs to hack the MacOS on each machine – this is their downfall.
Reminds me of Apple II days when Apple sued the ‘Pineapple’, ‘Orange’ and ‘Franklin’ companies for producing hardware clones with copied Apple-ROMs to run the Apple DOS. These cases were easy since these companies were plain stealing code.
While I think Apple is taking a massive risk in suing (should they lose), the fact that Psystar has had to ‘hack’ the Mac OS (rather than install the plan DVD version) shows that Apple’s case is very clear and winnable.
WTF? According to the Apple fanbois no one was purchasing Psystar pieces of crap.
A difference between then and now is that IBM wasn’t allowing either their OS to run on other hardware or their hardware to run other company’s OS. Apple does allow anything else to run on their hardware. They just restrict where their OS can run.
I don’t put a whole lot of faith in the courts, though.
Apple is going to spend more money on lawyers than Psystar collected from selling computers.
It would be interesting to know how much Apple pays yearly for lawyers. It’s gotta be a bunch.
I wonder how much cheaper everything would be if companies didn’t have to pay for those armies of lawyers to handle stupid stuff.
@Demon:
“2) All Retail copies of Mac OS X are purchased as upgrades to a fully licensed copy that is only sold with a New Apple Macintosh computer (read the EULA with a retail copy of Mac OS X).”
So how did that work when OS X was first released? The first version released for OS X was just that- the first version.
Also, if they really wanted to beat the Apple suit, all Psystar would have to do is sell retail copies of Mac OS X uninstalled. Let the buyer do the installation. At that point, Psystar’s boxes are just your typical generic PC hardware, maybe with some added software that would allow the buyer, if they so chose, to install Mac OS X.
In order to sell copies of OS X they’d have to be Apple Authorized Resellers.They aren’t, to the best of my knowledge. Yet another nail in their coffin, methinks.