“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.
Hmmm… If Psystar put the word “Apple” on the box (“labeled” it as it were), Apple Inc. could be up a creek. They should have stated “Apple Computer, Inc.” or “Apple Inc.” manufactured computer. Apple may have screwed themselves for now. If they figure this out, they will probably change it to be more specific and future versions of the OS will be restricted to their hardware.
Is Psystar preinstalling OS/X on these machines? If it is, then definitely apple has the upper hand. In fact, it can stop sales to Psystar probably.
But if not, and all Psystar is doing is building pcs that it is claiming are mac os compatible, then there really isn’t much in line of violations.
But based on Psystar’s website, where they provide instructions for violating another company’s LUA….I think the boundaries are pretty clear. I doubt Psystar will get shut down, but they will be forced to stop providing assistance to users for license violations.
I would have love to take part in these brainstorm sessions where some would have played lawyers of APPLE and the others those of Psystar… Must have been fun to imaging all the twisted questions and answers that could come out during the jugements!!
OMG MAC NEWS!!!!
I was starting to think this was iPhone Daily News
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
Because that worked so well the last time they did a niche processor… They’re with Intel for the long haul.
hi
anyone want to employee me ?
Actually, if you read the whole thing, near the beginning, the license correctly defines who “Apple” refers to in the agreement (just as “you” is a placeholder for the end user).
@NCIceman:
Is Psystar preinstalling OS/X on these machines? If it is, then definitely apple has the upper hand. In fact, it can stop sales to Psystar probably.
Yes, they are preinstalling it. Not only are they preinstalling it, they are hacking it to make it work with their generic hardware.
As has been stated before, Psystar doesn’t have a leg to stand on, unless they find a judge willing either to invalidate all Software License Agreements, or to require compulsory licensing. Either one would be a huge leap for any court in the USA, especially in this day and age when “legislating from the bench” is supposedly frowned upon.
——RM
@MDN “whatever court ends up having the final say”
If they lose the case, Apple will make sure it’s the US Supreme Court that has the final say.
@Lord Byron “setting a precenent that a companies products are free to be copied regardless of copyright and trademarks”
They were working with retail copies of OSX. Like nanisani said the case is the contract violation issue. The question is the extent to which the contract is legal in the eyes of the judge (for example OSX is available to minors, who cannot legally enter into a contract without parental consent).
@the plan “AAPL closes @ 600 by xmas”
Up by alot, but 600 is very optimistic.
@james73 “Anyone would be able to take software add a few lines of code and resell it as their own”
Once again this is confusing copyrights, and contracts. What you create you own, what others do to their copy after you sell it to them is theirs. They only own their modification, and cannot sell your labor as their own. All EULA contracts are invalid under a wide variety of circumstances.
Psystar’s web site says that they have “over 30 years of combined experience.” I have 36 years of experience with computers all by myself. If they have more than five people on their staff, someone still watches Saturday morning cartoons in his pajamas. Psystar also ships computers with OS X pre-installed and have a script that modifies Software Update in OS X to redirect it to themselves. They have to do it because their customers can’t install Apple’s updates without Psystar’s modifications.
The only thing missing (other than the FAQs page) is a picture of the corporate president with an eyepatch and a parrot on his shoulder and a corporate logo consisting of a black flag with a skull and crossbones. These guys have done everything possible to make themselves defenseless in the face of a lawsuit like this.
It is hypothetically possible that Apple indirectly set them up to sue them, win an open-and-shut case, and set an important legal precedent. However, I think it’s much more likely that it’s just a couple of really stupid guys.
@ LordRobin “Not only are they preinstalling it, they are hacking it to make it work with their generic hardware.”
Not quite. Just like Apple emulated the legacy BIOS in order to get MS-Windows running, current OSX86 efforts involve emulation of the Apple EFI. OSX is untouched, just like Windows is untouched
@@AlanAudio:
I think AlanAudio was referring to a custom chip that would serve a specific purpose, not be the CPU. Apple has done this before. The original Macintosh had part of the operating system built into a ROM chip. To run a emulator of a classic Mac, you need an image of that chip.
——RM
@ Harvey “their customers can’t install Apple’s updates without Psystar’s modifications.”
They don’t modify them. They test them, and pass on all of the ones that work on the machine. You’re over-estimating the capabilities of this company.
@zaxxon4
The only reason there were IBM-compatible PCs was because some company (I forgot who) hired programmers who had never seen or heard of the IBM PC (it was possible back then), then shut them up in a room so that they could reverse-engineer IBM’s BIOS without recourse to the actual thing. The result was a BIOS that gave the same outputs for the same inputs, but was entirely different inside; an entirely original work.
Now IBM is out of the picture and there are any number of BIOSes to choose from. Apple can license one just like anyone else.
Apple’s EFI is like IBM’s original BIOS. It has not been emulated or reverse-engineered. There hasn’t been enough time for that. It has been stolen.
@zaxxon4
Admittedly, I’m a little unclear on this. But my understanding is that EFI can emulate BIOS in hardware, and that’s how Apple gets Windows to boot on a Mac. BIOS can’t emulate the newer EFI in hardware, so a software hack is needed. I’m pretty sure they hacked OS X to boot via BIOS.
Unless this changed while I wasn’t looking, you can’t load the OS X disc onto generic hardware. You need to download a hacked version. That implies that the actual OS was modified in some way.
——RM
Can you actually sue somebody for installing your software on their hardware? After all, Psyster didn’t modify the software. I think the question will more or less be whether or not Apple can sue somebody for reselling their software. If it can be proven that Psyster was making a profit on the installed software, then it’s buh bye Psyster. Otherwise, anytime I install Mac OS whatever on one of my old Macs or Mac clones, and then sell it on eBay, I’m screwed – potentially.
@ Lord Robin ” Not only are they preinstalling it, they are hacking it to make it work with their generic hardware.”
Ahhh, no they’re not. They are running a cloned (legal) EFI which allows them to install OS X out of the box (Just like the cloned Phoenix and Award BIOSs of the 1980’s).
I’ve read the same thing over and over again on MDN… Say it all you want, doesn’t make it true… As a matter of fact, most new OSX86 installs use this method rather than the older patched OSX method,,,,
@Harvey “Apple’s EFI is like IBM’s original BIOS. It has not been emulated or reverse-engineered. There hasn’t been enough time for that. It has been stolen.”
and
@LordRobin “That implies that the actual OS was modified in some way”
In this case it’s more of a case of bypassing it than it is of modifying it. You basically put OSX on it’s own partition (untouched), and then has the bootloader go out and pretend to be the OSX boot loader (it was copied and modified from Darwin). The rest of OSX never knows the difference, and runs better than Vista, even though the hardware is “officially” incompatible.
http://www.digitmemo.com/articles/734/howto-install-efi-patch-and-enable-vanilla-os-x-kernel-in-hackintosh/
“@ Lord Robin – Admittedly, I’m a little unclear on this. “
I have no doubt. You’re a mindless Apple fanboy. You don’t understand computers. Gosh golly gee, it just works!!
@Mr. Peabody “If it can be proven that Psyster was making a profit on the installed software, then it’s buh bye Psyster”
Labor is not free, and they can legally charge for the labor they put into it. They don’t charge much though, because the hard work was done for them by the OSX86 community (many of whom hate Psystar for not giving them credit for this).
@SK “You’re a mindless Apple fanboy. You don’t understand computers”
There’s no need for name calling. LordRobin may be unfamiliar with the ins-and-outs of bootcamp (software not hardware emulation) and OSX86, but people who use Apple computer’s don’t need to know those things. When they say “it just works” they say it because it does. As someone who grew up with MS-DOS and has built more PC’s than I have bought, I am not exactly you’re typical mac user (can you say “switcher?”).
Given the timing of this filing, I am guessing that Apple was waiting for Psystar to release a modified version of the 10.5.4 update to MacOS X. Modifying someone else’s work and distributing it, even for free, is a direct violation of the creator’s copyright. I suspect that, if Psystar had released an update installer and recommended to its clients that they download the update from Apple and install it with Pystar’s installer, Apple would have moved very much slower. Since at that point Apple would have to prove that the Pystar installer infringed on Apple’s copyright or patents.
Clearly the strength of the shrinkwrap license that forbids installing MacOS X on non-Apple hardware is much less well proved. It appears that Apple wanted to avoid using this argument as the cornerstone for its infringement case.
“oh, and i don’t put a lot of faith in courts nowadays…. would you?”
Pisstar executives could knife to death two people and leave a trail of blood drops to their bedroom and get away with it.
So maybe they’ll be found to be in the clear.
Apparently most of you don’t know what Pystar is doing. You think they’ve illegally copied the OS? No they haven’t. They are installing retail copies of OS X on a PC. This isn’t about piracy. Its about whether a EULA is binding. Frankly, most EULA’s I’ve looked at are insane. Apple’s EULA states that OS X must be installed on an Apple labeled computer. Psystar will argue that they have purchased the software, therefore it is their right to use it however they want.
I, for one, believe that a user who legally purchases software should have the right to use it however they want. But I think Psystar will lose because they are trying to sell a PC with OS X pre-installed. Thats the gotcha. They don’t have a license to sell OS X.
But I as an individual who purchases a retail copy of OS X should be able to run it legally on whatever I choose. No stipulations whatsoever.
LordRobin was quite right. There are more chips in a Mac apart from the CPU. It would be very unlikely that the PA semi developers could develop CPUs that could match those of Intel, although they do produce some which are exceptionally frugal in terms of power consumption.
If Apple were to use a custom chip for one of the supporting tasks in a Mac, then unauthorised clone assemblers would not be able to get those chips. Apple may need to come up with a way of allowing older Macs to upgrade – maybe by authorising it via the serial number, but unauthorised clones could be totally locked out by technical means rather than constrained by legal means.