“In a move that everyone was waiting for, Apple has finally sued Psystar for violating its copyright and has asked for the company’s profits and a recall of all orders,” Don Reisinger writes for CNET.
“Everyone knew Apple would eventually make a move against Psystar, but I’m not too sure anyone thought the suit would feature the kind of saber rattling it does. That said, it’s the smart move and one that Apple must make if it wants to get away from anything of the sort happening again,” Reisinger writes.
“But if it doesn’t use its head and try to force Psystar to its demise, Apple will open a can of worms that it may not be able to handle so easily,” Reisinger writes.
“If Apple gets everything it asks for and totally ruins Psystar, it will never need to worry about an unknown firm trying to sell Mac OS X again… But if it doesn’t get everything it asks for and it’s forced to concede some points and the court orders Psystar to pay Apple some sort of licensing fee, Apple will have stepped on a bee’s nest,” Reisinger writes.
Full review here.
It all hinges on whether or not Apple’s Software License Agreement for Mac OS X is deemed legally binding by whatever court ends up having the final say. Apple’s Software License Agreement for Mac OS X explicitly states: This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.
we already have been saying that in the prior pystar thread
Apple will win. No bees nest.
oh, and i don’t put a lot of faith in courts nowadays…. would you?
Geez… what part of “copyright” does Psystar not understand. Apple OWNS the OS, that means that they get to do whatever the hell they want with it, including not licensing it. Hopefully the judge has a better understanding of copyright law.
Of course I believe in the courts. Just because rulings don’t go in a way that you *think* they should doesn’t mean they “aren’t working”.
Get over yourself.
That would actaully be a hornets’ Nest. Bees live in hives.
Obviously they’ll win. I’m sure they have their million dollars lawyers ready.
@Jings (et al)
This is not really a ‘copyright’ issue. It is a contract issue. The Software Licensing Agreement is a contract. It is probably also a trademark issue because Psystar is using Apples trade name and logo to sell their (Psystar’s) product without permission from Apple.
There may even be patent issues involved if the Psystar computer has been engineered to use Apple’s patented software technology without permission.
Copyright may be a small factor here but it’s relatively trivial in light of these other issues.
I doubt Psystar has the resources to get good lawyers. Apple will muscle them to the ground.
There’s no way Apple loses this case. If they do, the courts are setting a precenent that a companies products are free to be copied regardless of copyright and trademarks, etc… What’s the purpose of the copyright system if anyone can just do what they want with someone elses product and sell it as there own, and the originator can do nothing about it?
It seems like a much simpler approach would fix this. For example, “you are reselling Mac OS X, but you are not an Apple-authorized reseller. So you are in violation of the OS X license agreement you got when you purchased it!”
Anyone want to bet if Microsoft backs some high-priced defense attorneys for Psystar?
Apple looses case has to sell pv version of os x for $299
AAPL closes @ 600 by xmas
I HATE articles like these. It’s written by a frigtard journalist (from C|Net no less – certainly no friend of the Apple community), who, unless he has closely consulted with legal counsel or has the benefit of a law degree himself, is arriving at his judgment of the details of the case law involved by anal extraction.
This provides no benefit to the readers whatsoever.
In matters of legal disputes, the devil is in the details. Doing a quick drive-by article like this could be WAY off the mark. Why can’t publications turn to legal experts to provide real insight? And the headline above? Give me a break! “Win or else?” Or else what? Apple is doomed? That of course is one of the favorite FUD tools used by C|Net.
Now if you will excuse me, I think I’ll bang my head against the wall. I was having a pleasant day, then I read this garbage. It’s all the more reason I miss Fake Steve, as he usually teed off on frigtards like Reisinger. And not without good reason.
“Anyone want to bet if Microsoft backs some high-priced defense attorneys for Psystar?”
I would bet $$$$ that MS wants Apple to win this. MS has a rather restrictive license agreement as well, and they wouldn’t want that weakened by precedent of a judgement against Apple (or anyone else in the software biz for that matter)
And the legal experts are loosed! Of course Apple will win! I know all the nuances of copyright and contract law, and I declare that Apple will win and there will be no bees’ nests!
@ Mintdog
Just out of curiosity, what is your doubt based on? Anything at all? Beside the fact that you’d never heard of this company before a few months ago. Oh yeah, you’re right. They can’t get good lawyers.
@ Exasperated
Don’t you think you’re getting a little excited for something as silly as an article? I highly recommed you go bang your head. Please do!
He’s not providing any legal advise or guidance here, beyond what’s obvious. He’s not suggesting AT ALL what the outcome of such a trial will be. He’s only saying that IF Apple loses this case, then yeah, it could be bad for them. And yes, if the decision here is that Psystar can modify and use OSX, then legally, other companies could do it too. That’s obvious!
Go bang your head. Hard. Many times.
Sounds down right straght forward to me!
Put the software on a non-Apple computer and your fucked!
They did that and now the bill is coming due.. bottom line there fucked!
I definately agree that if apple loses every software license agreement will basically be irrelevant and anybody would be able to do whatever they want with any copy of software. Its one of the only things stopping people from being able to legally backwards engineer any piece of software they want.
I dont forsee Apple losing though
Unless the judge says that Apple must licence its OS even if it doesn’t want to whoever wants to license it it won’t effect the longer term outcome. Now if a judge did that it would seriously open up a can of worms for every company out there including one presumes motor manufacturers having to license production of their cars to others. Whatever the result short of this would allow Apple to make those computers rapidly redundant as it introduces software and hardware measures outside sales. The Court case will of course in the meantime put a stranglehold on such sales in the meantime.
If Apple loses this case it’ll spell disaster for the entire tech industry and the whole idea of an End Users Agreement or Software Licensing Agreement. Anyone would be able to take software add a few lines of code and resell it as their own. Do you think Adobe would want anyone to do this with their Creative Suite? Or Microsoft for that matter? Hell no!
By the time that the legal people have finished with this case, Apple should be making Macs which incorporate custom chips designed by PA Semi. Once the OS starts relying on ( and checking for the presence of ) custom chips, unauthorised clones will be irrelevant.
All Apple needs to do is to stall Pystar for as long as it takes PA semi’s designers to deliver the goods that Apple needs.
Note that I referred to unauthorised clones. Custom chips would be a brilliant way for Apple to maintain control over approved clones from official manufacturers. Those chips would only be available via Apple. Apple wouldn’t need to rely on unpredictable interpretations of law to protect their interests, they would rely on their own technology to do it.
Of course I believe in the courts. Just because rulings don’t go in a way that you *think* they should doesn’t mean they “aren’t working”.
I guess the system was working when the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scot v. Sandford, and that was just a ruling not going in a way that Mr. Scot thought it should.
I guess the system was working when the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson, and that was just a another ruling not going in a way that Mr. Plessy thought it should.
In case anyone doesn’t know, in the Dred Scot case, the Court ruled that, essentially, slaves were property and not people. In the Plessy case, the Court ruled that the “separate but equal” facilities were constitutional.
In other words, courts make mistakes sometimes.
By that license agreement I guess that makes Psystar an enabler.