“The Mac clone maker being sued by Apple Inc. because it installs Mac OS X on generic Intel-based systems said it bought copies of the operating system from Apple itself, court documents show,” Gregg Keizer reports for Computerworld.
“‘Psystar distributes computers with legitimately purchased copies of Mac OS loaded thereon,’ the company said. ‘Many of those copies [were] directly obtained from Apple. While Psystar complies with Section 117(b) of the Copyright Act, Apple attempts to usurp those limitations by telling Psystar and its customers that Apple — and Apple alone — will say ‘whether, how or by whom its software is … distributed or used,”” Keizer reports.
“Apple’s case relies on exactly that; it has claimed from the start of its July 2008 lawsuit that the Mac OS X end-user licensing agreement (EULA) forbids users from installing the operating system on hardware not sold by Apple,” Keizer reports.
“Apple declined to comment on the case, which is slated to go to trial in April,” Keizer reports.
Full article here.
The saga continues. This episode’s so bad, we suspect Lucas wrote and directed it.
“Microsoft” just can´t let it be. Who is Psystar?
Psystar=epic Fail
Where else but from Apple would Psystar buy their copies of Mac OS X Leopard? It would be hilarious if it was found that Psystar was installing “pirated” Leopard on those computers (and all they had at Psystar HQ was ONE Leopard installation disc).
Apple sells those copies of Mac OS X as an UPGRADE for existing supported Macs, not as new installations on generic hardware. The $129 retail price is an upgrade price.
Interesting how Psystar’s argument here borrows from the populist appeal on the consumer side – “I bought the CD/DVD/video game/etc., I can do what I want with it!”
Not sure it really works if you’re a company making money from that, though – after all, they’re not just reselling OS X, they’re modifying parts of it to run on their machines, and they were offering their own updates for it as well.
In any event, it should be interesting to see how the EULA-related part of their case that plays out, as this would obviously have ramifications across the entire software industry.
(P.S. “This episode’s so bad, we suspect Lucas wrote *and* directed it.” – BWAHAHAHAHA! MDN, you have some really sharp folks writing your takes. Keep ’em coming!)
This is a somewhat clever argument by Psystar. But while I could see a court agreeing if it were for personal use, it would be nuts to disallow Apple from establishing EULA ground rules for commercial uses. If Psystar were installing OSX only on computers in its own offices, they should probably win. Since they are installing it on computers they are selling to others, they should lose.
MDN Take: “This episode’s so bad, we suspect Lucas wrote and directed it.”
Has Lucas done anything worthwhile since Young Indiana Jones Chronicles? I mean, besides selling Pixar to Steve Jobs.
This illuminates the ridiculous state of things within the american legal system!
We purchased it…so there!
This has all the depth of a Paris Hilton tv episode.
Apple does not sell OS X, the box you buy in the store is an upgrade. The license requires you to have an existing version of the OS installed. Psystar is breaking the license agreement by installing an upgrade on a new system.
The EULA is pretty clear. Seems cut and dried to me.
“The saga continues. This episode’s so bad, we suspect Lucas wrote and directed it.”
LOL! Oh poor George. Yes, he should really stick to being the big picture guy and leaving the details to others.
This is how we can tell MS isn’t behind this.
Basically they’re questioning the whole idea of EULA. The company with the most to lose is MS.
Although as I’ve said many times… the outcome in the unlikely event Psystar prevails is that Macs get MS-like activation schemes. Pray they do not prevail.
Thankfully this doesn’t happen with computers for the real world that run Windows. The great thing is I can run Vista on a Gateway, Acer, Dell or whatever. The good people at Psystar are simply trying to give users choice, and MAC doesn’t want you to have a choice. It’s all about their proprietary system so they can extract as much money out of you lemmings as they can. I can build my own PC and put Windows on it for a fraction of the cost of a MAC. And it plays games.
Vista is looking pretty nice right about now, isn’t it?
Your potential. Our passion.™
I, for one do not believe that the puppeteer is Micro$oft. I think it’s a WinTel box maker who is trying desperately to pry the right to intall OS X on their own machines. Makes much more sense. Dell, Lenovo, etc.
This is what the actual section they’re arguing states:
(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation. — Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
Apple is the copyright owner, not Psystar how are they going to get around that?
Apple is the copyright owner, not Psystar how are they going to get around that?
Seeing as, with each episode of this story, Psystar’s arguments become progressively weaker, I suspect the next stage will either be If you don’t let us do what we want, we’ll scweam and scweam until we make ourselves sick” or “We’re going to hold our breath until we turn blue.”.
Unfortunately for Psystar, I’m pretty sure “Possession is 9/10ths of the law” isn’t actually a sound legal principle.
I’m thinking it will be more along the lines of threatening to huff and puff and blow Apple’s top executives.
Up. I meant, blow them up!
>.>
<.<
Personally, I hope Psystar wins. I’m tired of not having much choice in hardware from Apple. iMac or Mac Pro. Some choice. My PowerMac G5 is long in the tooth. Don’t want a iMac. Can’t afford a Mac Pro. I’d love to build my own machine again and install OS X on it.
I really wish Apple would license OS X. I believe the number of copies they would sell to PC vendors and hobbyists would more than offset the few hardware sales they would lose.
Hey…hey…no need to bring Star Wars into this. Come on now, MDN, most of us are nerds here, and nerds tend to love Star Wars (despite the utterly disappointing Episodes I & II [personally, I loved Episode III])
Oh, and hey-Star Wars kicks the trash out of the new Indiana Jones movie, so if you’re gonna mention Lucas, you ought to mention Spielberg too. Ugh…aliens…
Have EULAs ever been challenged in court?
I can see that if Pystar actually gives away a legit copy of OS X with each computer, that seems almost fair.
Now of course, Apple has no obligations whatsoever to support such “Frankentoshes”
Jocknerd, you have many choices; iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, Mac Pro, Mac Mini. If you don’t like those choices, then I’m afraid the problem is yours.
Years ago, if Apple would have licensed the Mac OS, we all know that Microsoft would be a much smaller company than it is now, and Apple would be the behemoth. But Apple would probably have ceased being a hardware company, or maybe only a small portion of their business would have been hardware (then in later years they could have sold the whole hardware business to Lenovo
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> ).
But there might not have been an iPod, or an iPhone, or an Apple TV. iWork might have been the office suite of choice, far more powerful than it is now. Who knows.
But THAT was not Apple’s strategy when Jobs returned 11 years ago and returned Apple to glory. It WAS the hardware AND the software. No wonder MS can’t get it’s OS to work – there are so many different components out there that require drivers that it’s hard to comprehend. Not a Mac problem for sure – Apple controls the base hardware which assures compatibility with its operating system.
Hence, the EULA. There is a distinct reason behind this. Not only the fact that Apple wants to control the hardware and the OS – but because they want to ensure the thing works correctly. Is this something a potential “licensee” like Psystar can promise? They already proved they can’t! But if you read the EULA, it’s pretty clear. How would anyone prevail over this? And if Psystar actually won this case, think of the affect on all of the EULAs out there with similar provisions. Bottom line – Psystar doesn’t stand a chance.
Plystar appears to be run by idealistic kids just out of college who know absolutely nothing about law. Their company will go bankrupt and won’t be worth a dime.
Since the principles behind this fiasco won’t be worth much more than the Nike shoes on their feet and the six-pack of Coors in their near-empty refrigerator, there is no point for Apple to try to financially clean their personal clocks.
These dimwits just make attorneys richer, the computing world crappier, and computer publications more full of laughs.
@Jacob
“Unfortunately for Psystar, I’m pretty sure “Possession is 9/10ths of the law” isn’t actually a sound legal principle.”
Actually, that little aphorism IS NOT a legal principle. It’s a FACT.
That is, if one steals a car and then “possesses” it, he is not thereby entitled to keep it with a 90% (9/10) right.
All this expression actually means is that if one walks into a legal library and surveys all of the books therein, the subject of “possession” will occupy 90% of them by volume.
Ownership and its concomitant rights and responsibilities are the overwhelming foundations of jurisprudence.
lawyer help here please…..
I believe its Possession is 9 points of the law. Not being a lawyer, you got me.