“Apple is asking a court to order Miami-based Psystar to stop making unauthorized Mac clones and to recall all of the systems it has sold to customers since it began offering them for public sale in April,” Paul McDougall reports for InformationWeek.
“In a lawsuit filed against Psystar in federal court, Apple is seeking an order ‘requiring Psystar to recall all such products sold to the public as a result of Psystar’s infringement of Apple’s copyrights,'” McDougall reports.
“It’s not immediately clear whether Psystar could legally compel its customers to give return their systems. But the clones may not be of much use for long if Psystar is forced out of business and is unable to support them,” McDougall reports.
“Psystar’s Web site was offline as of Wednesday morning,” McDougall reports.
“Apple is charging Psystar with violating its copyrights and weakening its brand image. ‘By misappropriating Apple’s proprietary software and intellectual property for its own use, Psystar’s actions harm consumers by selling them a poor product that is advertised and promoted in a manner that falsely and unfairly implies an affiliation with Apple,’ the company said in its complaint,” McDougall reports.
“Apple also charged Psystar with illegally copying, modifying, and redistributing some of its products. The 18-page complaint outlines a total of 10 charges against Psystar. Psystar officials did not return a call seeking comment,” McDougall reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Psystar’s going to have to rename the company “Smoking Crater” when this is all said and done. Our advice to Psystar: Begin applying for Superfund status immediately.
ahahah!
It’s the pay for the fake and cheapy Macs that psystar was selling.
Apple will probably win but “falsely and unfairly implies an affiliation with Apple” ? Let’s get real. I find it hard to believe that any customer assumed PyStar was affiliated with Apple.
“Smoking Crater” is already taken. Must check the registry for “Ground Zero”, “Parked on the Tracks” and “Wile E. Coyote wins another Darwin.”
“Alderaan”, “Eagle One” and “Red Shirt” are up for grabs, however, as the previous office holders are no longer, ah, in business.
what the hell did they expect in the first place? For Apple to go on its knees and hail them as the “winner” for running OS X on non Mac computers? They deserve every pain from this lawsuit.
my feelings towards F*☆are not suitable for print
What possessed these morons from even attempting this? Did they really want to see the inside of jail so badly?
Live By Sword, Die By Sword
Apple Legal, bitch.
To: bjh
Never underestimate the naïveté of some consumers. If the box says Apple anywhere on it, they will believe Apple supports it. And then what does Apple do when these folks go to an Apple Store and buy Snow Leopard and then call Apple for tech support? Apple will have to turn them away because they are not using a Mac. And that’s when bad word of mouth against Apple begins
“I find it hard to believe that any customer assumed PyStar was affiliated with Apple.”
You greatly overestimate the intelligence of their customers.
(I’d suggest checking out their funny forums but either the Psystar site is slashdotted or shutting down. The Wayback Machine may be the only way.)
I demand that they be recalled, dumped into a pit and defecated on, then set ablaze!
If there are people out there who think Windows is just as good as OS X, then there is no limit to the crap people choose to believe. People want cheap, but are surprised when they get what they pay for.
I hear Apple is planning to turn Psystar HQ into a nature preserve for big cats. However “outside” sources say their feeding and physical activity plans for the Tigers, Panthers and Leopards have not been planned past Friday afternoon.
“Inside” sources at the new preserve report their faces are being clawed off.
“I demand that they be recalled, dumped into a pit and defecated on, then set ablaze!”
Sponsored by the GG Allin Fan Club.
Psystar is about to have a religious experience. This is as close to getting smited as it gets!
Psystar website DOWN!!!!! Wo0†!
Well, we all know that Psystar is not long for this world. However, it will be interesting to see what happens to the founders/owners of the company. Will they be personally held liable? Or did they incorporate, so maybe they won’t be responsible. If they made a pile o’ money in salary over the last few months, and then the company goes out of business, they may not care. They made their share. However, if they are somehow personally responsible, then it wasn’t worth their efforts. Perhaps MDN can get us the scoop?
Psystar is a scam company that the Florida AG’s Office should have closed days after it opened for business. The first Court meeting is on October 22nd. My guess is on October 21st, they just disappear and they do not attend the case management conference, nor do they respond to Apple Complaint.
By November 15, or sooner Apple files a motion for summery judgement and a permanent injunction to stop Psystar or any of the owners derivatives, distributors or associates from creating Mac Clones in the future. And Apple will have the court impound all the companies and it’s owners assets.
By January 1st, is when the Florida AGs office will finally get involved as consumer complaints start to roll in about defective systems and undelivered systems. With no response from the company Psystar (P!ssT!rd).
AMPAR!!!!!!
Once again the funniest and most on target comment…
“However, it will be interesting to see what happens to the founders/owners of the company.”
They’re probably just finishing up their interviews with Ballmer. And then, MS HR has some papers for them to sign.
Selling there cheap garbage PC crap and putting Apple’s OS and calling it a Mac Compatible clone is what Apple is talking about when they talk about affiliation. Starting the company to begin with was a really stupid thing to do without even trying to talk to Apple first.
Oh well, I’m glad that this happened finally. I think Apple’s legal team was carefully going over this case before they filed the charges. They want to make sure they win this case so no other clone people get any funny ideas.
I just want to see Steve turn up at the Miami ‘HQ’ with an iSledgehammer – and watch the fun begin!
*boom*
here’s an interesting idea….
We all know that if you find a way to install an “upgrade” version (without owning the original) of, say, MS Office… and the Biz SW alliance police come a knocking, it will be considered copyright infringement by you.
So… if you own a Psystar “clone”, you are actually in the same situation. Your copy of OSX is an upgrade version (ain’t no such thing as a non-upgrade version of OSX, except as shipped with a mac). So it isn’t just Psystar that is infringing… YOU are.
It’s not as if Apple didn’t know this day would come… and hasn’t erected every possible legal barrier.
Of course, I’M not a lawyer…
And I think the answer to “what took so long” is simply that Apple Legal took the time to throw every possible legal complaint and theory at them… to bury them.
I really hope Apple succeeds because I know the alternative is a world of Windows-like activation. And reactivation. If you don’t do the ‘doze, you have know idea the special hell you are missing. Like being on the road, having your product key at home, finding out you have to reactivate or buy a new license (for 100s of dollars).
How many Hellfire missiles will a retrofitted Gulfstream V hold?
There is a limit to how much consumer knowledge is reasonable to expect, and I’d say it’s doubtful that anyone who bought Psystar didn’t know what they were getting. So Apple doesn’t have a claim there.
As for the license agreement, I’m not sure. People were fairly upset when Microsoft said that Vista Home could not be run in virtualization, forcing people to buy expensive Vista. Is that too different from what Apple is demanding?
PissStar computers acted like they wanted a fight, I guess they got their wish.
They tried to make themselves look like a normal little PC box house, you could buy a PC running Windoze or Linux or Mac.
This recall is a clever tactic by Apple legal. If the cost of defending themselves in court does not break the PissStar bank account, the cost of the recall will.
Good luck PissStar, you’re gonna need it!
ROFL, Ampar!
well, at least know we know why it took Apple so long to finally take action. it took all that time to document all the illegal actions and infringements…
“Apple demands recall of all Psystar ‘Mac clones’ sold to date”
Really, how will this be enforced? If Psystar goes bankrupt will Apple pay clone owners for their machines or will Apple give them MacPros in exchange?
Wow, going for the jugular!
Maybe when they move in to demolish the Miami HQ, not only will they salt the earth where the building stood, but use a wrecking ball shaped like the Apple logo?
As for the recall, I suspect the founders of the company will be inclined to organize it out of their own pocket as part of the punishment.
Hey MDN! Speaking of “cloning”, this is what Ampar said yesterday:
“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.”
And this is your comment today:
“Psystar’s going to have to rename the company “Smoking Crater” when this is all said and done.”
Sound familiar?
“Apple demands recall of all Psystar ‘Mac clones’ sold to date”
Yeah! BOTH of them!
Why would P’star do this?
Anyone?
Unless Psystar was copying a single purchased copy of the Mac OS, what “copyright” did they violate? As far as I can tell, they only violated a license “agreement”, which in my opinion is dubious anyway. Granted, Apple isn’t doing anything that any other software pubisher seems to do, but the idea that a product I purchase can have limitations put on it by the manufacturer that are arbitrary just doesn’t sit well. These license agreements would be akin to buying a book that has a shrink-wrap license stating that only the original purchaser is allowed to read the book. No one else can read it, and the original purchaser cannot sell the book after they are done reading it. Or maybe a better analogy is that you buy coffee beans from a coffee shop, but they only allow you to drink coffee made from those beans in coffee cups that they also sell- you cannot use any other coffee cup to drink that coffee.
As long as Psystar was buying each and every copy of Leopard they sold, I just don’t see a copyright violation.
Maybe a way around this, and I imagine it’s technically possible, would be to sell machines that have only a very basic, probably Linux-based, Virtual Appliance type OS on them. Then you buy your own OS and install it in this virtual machine. All the virtual machine does is capture any hardware-specific checks that the installed OS makes and return the expected results so that the OS *thinks* it’s on whatever hardware you want it to. There would be no modifications to the installed OS that way, so nothing that could possibly violate copyright.
For those who wish to build their own machines to fit their needs, and not necessarily the needs of the market that Apple (or any other OS publisher) sells to, this would allow them to have the hardware *and* software of their choice.
I also don’t understand the hatred of Psystar here- if their products suck so bad, they’ll go out of business quite nicely on their own. Since everyone here seems to be well aware of all the drawbacks, and wouldn’t purchase one of those products or recommend to anyone they knew to do so, what’s the harm if some one who is willing to deal with those drawbacks and understands the risks opts to buy one? How does what that person does hurt you?
To El Guapo:
“Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal”
– Steven P. Jobs (
)
Just for fun a few weeks ago I went to their website and built one to the nearest possible specs to the base 20 inch iMac. Include a webcam, keyboard & mouse, bluetooth card, wi fi card, firewire card, and ended up about $150 less for a clunky tower & wires & freestanding webcam, probably inferior support.
Bitch, moan, whine, “Macs are too expensive” waaaaaa. Macs are not too expensive. Question is, how cheap are the complainers? Macs are not bargain basement, but sure as hell looks like you get what you pay for.
Certainly now there will be invective on the net from people about how big bad Apple Inc. is being so mean.
From its overkill reaction, it looks like Apple has the skits… BIG TIME!
Hopefully, Psystar can get funding for this case from some big box manufacturers. The prize is a big one and looks like can be easily won… if Psystar can afford to take Apple all the way – which is EXACTLY what Apple is acknowledging its fear of here.
If Psystar lose this time, there will be another box-maker coming up right behind them (perhaps a more grown up one) to follow through on ruling, tweak its ‘Open OS’ box specs in accordance and put it out to market. Apple’s headache begins all over again – as well as an increasing amount of bad-press about restrictive practices, monopolies, hypocrisy etc.
Ultimately Apple will lose this fight and its OS will be opened up for all to use with their free choice of boxes. Technology cannot be held back – a paradoxical lesson for Apple.
@ Jimbo von Winskinheimer & Ampar
“However, it will be interesting to see what happens to the founders/owners of the company.”
Actually, I hear Steve Jobs will break from his strict diet and devour the head of the company on stage.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”snake” style=”border:0;” />
The other founders will be forced to work in the Cupertino Diamond Mines for all eternity. (That Infinite Loop thing really comes back to bite you in the A$$.)
“Actually, I hear Steve Jobs will break from his strict diet and devour the head of the company on stage.”
No need to worry.
BTW: Psystar is a tiny company. Clearly its cryptical name can be pronounced ‘sister’. And if this box maker is – literally – ‘little sister’ we can all begin wondering who ‘big brother’ is behind it? Strikes me that Psystar is a stalking horse set up to define the law concerning Apple (and hence no big name gets publicly tangled up in this test).
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Apple is all too aware of who ‘little sister’s’ ‘big brother’ is and the long delay in acting has been to try and find a way out of a brilliant piece of legal manoeuvring which is forcing Apple into a corner.
@Twenty Benson:
Your argument would only hold water if Psystar was just selling a generic Mac-clone, and the only thing keeping Mac OS X from running on it were Apple’s policies. That’s not the case. Mac OS X doesn’t run out of the box on generic Intel PCs. Psystar had to used a modified version of OS X and pre-install it. I can’t see any court giving that the okay — it would be an unheard-of weaking of intellectual property rights.
——RM
@shiva105:
Maybe a way around this, and I imagine it’s technically possible, would be to sell machines that have only a very basic, probably Linux-based, Virtual Appliance type OS on them. Then you buy your own OS and install it in this virtual machine. All the virtual machine does is capture any hardware-specific checks that the installed OS makes and return the expected results so that the OS *thinks* it’s on whatever hardware you want it to. There would be no modifications to the installed OS that way, so nothing that could possibly violate copyright.
That sounds like it would be a violation of the DMCA. But it’s a moot point: a Mac OS X won’t install or boot on a generic Intel machine for reasons that are technical, not just legal. If that weren’t the case, everybody would be loading store-bought Mac OS X onto their Dells, rather than downloading that hacked-up FrankenOS.
——RM
@ znkjbnzjk
I’m not certain if it’s the same in the USA (maybe I shouldn’t assume that’s where you are), but in Canada, if one pays for and acquires illegally produced, manufactured, or ill-gotten products, one does not have rights to ownership of those products, even though one paid for them.
Simplified: Up here, one cannot legally own stolen goods, even if one purchased the goods from someone else.
You may have heard of the term, “Possession of stolen property”. (Yeah, maybe not exactly the same in this instance, but similar enough in principle)
So to answer your question;
(If USA law is similar to Canadian law,) Apple would not refund the purchasers of Psystar’s sh!!boxes.
As purchasers of illegally produced items, the purchasers would have no right to possession, and would be forced to return said ‘boxes without recompense.
@ znkjbnzjk
BUT, the purchasers who were forced to return their sh!!t boxes, if it can be proved that Psystar misrepresented the clones to their customers as legal, may have the right to pursue Psystar for costs associated with losing their clones to recall.
@LordRobin:
But if a Psystar-like company intended to sell and advertise an “Open OS” box… including a piece of software called, say, ‘BoxCamp’, which functioned exactly as Apple’s ‘BootCamp’ with whatever third-party OS disc a user chose put into the box… it could claim its business practice was identical to Apple’s. It could even make the same disclaimer as Apple… that the company takes no responsibility whatsoever for the third-party OS a user chooses to run on the box.
If Psystar can legally sell OS X installation discs, it could just chuck that unopened disk into the delivery and leave the putting two-and-two together to the enduser.
Ampar,
Here is something else that is classified as a fish – by the Roman Catholic Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara
Apple waited just long enough so that a court order to recall sold machines would force the company to cease operations of any kind. And discourage anyone else from trying the same thing.
@ Twenty Benson
> which functioned exactly as Apple’s ‘BootCamp’ with whatever third-party OS disc a user chose put into the box… it could claim its business practice was identical to Apple’s.
What are you smoking? Apple does not put Windows “in the box” (or even sell it). The user must acquire it separately somewhere else. Windows license does not prohibit use on non-Microsoft machines; there are no Microsoft PCs. Windows is sold to be used on any PC; that’s the Microsoft business model. Apple’s Mac OS X license specifically states it can only be used on a Macintosh; maintaining and taking advantage of superior software/hardware integration is Apple’s business model.
@ken1w
What are YOU smoking? I never wrote Psystar puts OS X in its box. I wrote a BootCamp-like piece of software.
Mmmmm, capybara.
There’s nothing like a slow roasted, coprophagous H. hydrochaeris flank steak over a seafood paella with lemon grass.
@ shiva105:
italicsUnless Psystar was copying a single purchased copy of the Mac OS, what “copyright” did they violate? As far as I can tell, they only violated a license “agreement”, which in my opinion is dubious anyway. Granted, Apple isn’t doing anything that any other software pubisher seems to do, but the idea that a product I purchase can have limitations put on it by the manufacturer that are arbitrary just doesn’t sit well. These license agreements would be akin to buying a book that has a shrink-wrap license stating that only the original purchaser is allowed to read the book. No one else can read it, and the original purchaser cannot sell the book after they are done reading it. Or maybe a better analogy is that you buy coffee beans from a coffee shop, but they only allow you to drink coffee made from those beans in coffee cups that they also sell- you cannot use any other coffee cup to drink that coffee.
Your analysis is fatally flawed.
1. Courts have upheld the validity of shrink-wrap, click-wrap, and most other software license agreements, even if the end user doesn’t actually read them (who does?). Do you really think Apple, Microsoft, or any other company is going to negotiate with each end user regarding the terms of use? And yes, Apple can dictate those terms to a certain degree.
2. Your book analogy is wrong. You aren’t buying the copyright to the material, you are buying a license to read the book. You can’t copy, alter, reproduce, sell (and keep the original), or otherwise take ownership of the book. You can sell the book to another person, but you are selling your license to possess and read the book, not to own the copyright.
3. Your coffee analogy is ridiculous. You’re not buying a copyrighted or licensed product, you’re buying goods. You own the beans and may do with them what you choose. If Starbuck’s required you to buy a new mug in order to buy a bag of beans, you would have the option to buy your beans somewhere else. Just like with a Mac – if you don’t like the end user agreement, don’t buy the Mac.
Psyster violated the terms of Apple’s software license agreement for OS X. Period. Buying a copy of OS X retail is an upgrade version, which also requires you to install it on Apple hardware. If Psyster bought family packs, they’re in violation here as well because the use is limited to members of your family, not strangers who paid you money.
Finally, for those wondering why Apple waited to file the lawsuit, it’s very simple – Apple gave Psyster enough rope to hang itself, and then filed the suit. One of the keys to Apple’s lawsuit will be to PROVE damages, which can’t be done if no sales have occurred.
Now that Psyster has made sales of it’s Mac clones, Apple has a rock-solid case for damages. Those were sales that would have gone to Apple if Psyster had not produced its Mac clones. That’s easy to prove, because you can’t buy a Mac from any other company.
As for the corporation status, Apple can fight its way through the limited liability shield of the corporation. The corporation’s shield won’t protect the officers, board of directors, and even shareholders (probably the same people) if Apple can show intent to commit fraud, gross negligence, and other legal claims.
These guys are in deep trouble.
Ampar,
Being a rodent/fish, I first douse it with A1, then slather it with tartar sauce. But I still get confused about red or white wine. I guess I could mix it 50/50.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/behavior/Spring2002/Willoughby/other.html
“While most people might take one look at a capybara and consider this classification laughable, the Roman Catholic Church thought otherwise. The Roman Catholic Church has historically demanded that its adherents forgo the consumption of any form of meat besides fish during Lent. Europeans exploring Central and South America discovered that the capybara was similar to many of the richer meats they were familiar with such as chicken and pork. This discovery in hand, they realized they might have found a loophole and submitted a strange petition to the Church. Since the semi-aquatic capybara spends much of its day in the water, they argued that one could consider it a fish. Despite the fact that capybaras are no relation to fish, the Roman Catholic Church agreed to call it a fish and ever since then hundreds of people have eaten capybara during Lent. Because of this peculiarity, ranchers find it profitable to harvest and sell capybara in addition to their normal harvest of cattle and caiman during Lent. Almost 80 tons of capybara meat are collected annually, most of it during or immediately preceding Lent (Economist 1992).”
Under these circumstances I would definitely recommend a reisling or a white zinfandel.
That’s pronounced “Pisster” now.
HMCIV,
Thanks for the wine recommendations.
You know, those critters kinda taste like chicken. Go figure.
It is a fairly straight forward matter. Apple offers OS X as a licensed product. By acquiring a copy of OS X legally you accept the license agreement which precludes installation on any machine but a Macintosh. There is no substantive legal defence that Psyster can mount against the claims Apple has filed against them.
The ‘what about a boot camp like system that would allow OS X to run’ is a red herring. Apple does not allow anyone to install the OS on anything but a Mac. The reason you can install Windows on your Mac is because Microsoft does not restrict the type of computer you can install Windows on. You may recall that when Windows Vista packaging was announced Microsoft decided to alter the license agreement so that only the most expensive versions of Vista could be installed in virtual machines like VMWare. They later changed this license but this follows the same principle. People said ‘why would they do that?’ because folks it’s their intellectual property.
Psyster was asking for it. Don’t shed any tears for them. Unless of course you think the protection of intellectual property is unimportant.
“Of course, I’M not a lawyer… “
Which is why you’ve not read the EULA and realized the words “upgrade” don’t appear anywhere.
“There would be no modifications to the installed OS that way, so nothing that could possibly violate copyright.”
Beleive it ot not, that’s similar to what psystar does. They emulate EFI, so a genuine unmodified copy of Mac OS X thinks it’s on a Mac and runs on the hardware.
” including a piece of software called, say, ‘BoxCamp’, which functioned exactly as Apple’s ‘BootCamp’ with whatever third-party OS disc a user chose put into the box…”
Which, as I said above is what psystar does.
“Buying a copy of OS X retail is an upgrade version, which also requires you to install it on Apple hardware”
In your mind, not in the EULA.
“There is no substantive legal defence that Psyster can mount against the claims Apple has filed against them”
1) that they are not the end user, and therefore are not bound by the agreement between Apple and the end user, in the same way an Apple dealer merely resells the product and is not responsible if you violate Apple’s EULA, or a pre-loader of Windows software is not responsible if you, the END USER, later violate your End User License Agreement with Microsoft.
2) That the term restricting installation on Apple hardware is onerous and/or violates some other law and should be struck from the EULA.
There’s two very real legal arguments. Just because you write something in an EULA doesn’t mean a court will enforce it. Judges strike harsh and unconscionable terms from contracts every day.
Selling machines which are basically slightly tweaked PC clones based on standard designs and open specifications and selling OS software separately then complaining when someone else produces a similarly tweaked PC clone and installs a legitimately purchased copy of the OS on it seems unreasonable.
Just my 2c. They may have had a legal leg to stand on if they had sold a EFI modified box and a retail copy of 10.5 to the end user as two separate entities. Whether the end user decided to install the later on the former is another matter as per a reseller’s responsibility to Apple’s EULA. Still think it is fine line. Wouldn’t want to be the one in court fighting.
Not sure about the large box maker backing it to see what happens. Think there are better ways to test Apple’s protection of it’s EULA’s than the way ‘Fister’ have gone about things. Again, just my 2c.