“Last week, Psystar filed a lawsuit against Apple in the state of Florida alleging that Apple’s tying of Snow Leopard to Apple hardware is anti-competitive, restricts trade, and is ultimately in violation of anti-trust regulations,” Edible Apple reports.
“If this sounds familiar, it’s because similar arguments regarding OS X Leopard were already put forth by Psystar and were dismissed by the California court overseeing the current case,” Edible Apple reports.
“Psystar attempts to differentiate its recent lawsuit from the current litigation because that one involves Leopard while their latest legal action involves Snow Leopard. In an attempt to prove that the cases are different, Psystar argues that the ‘technical mechanisms used by Apple to tie Mac OS X Snow Leopard to Macintoshes’ is completely different than those used in Leopard,” Edible Apple reports. “Curiously, though, Psystar doesn’t take the time to describe how those technical restrictions have changed, and more importantly, how was Psystar able to know this when it filed its suit before Snow Leopard even went on sale?”
Edible Apple reports, “Apple doesn’t buy Psystar’s argument and writes: Psystar alleges, in its Florida complaint, that it utilizes a different circumvention method for Snow Leopard. Apple doubts this is true. A prompt review of Psystar’s source code will answer this question.“
Read the full article here.
I think I’ll sue McDonald’s for not letting me buy a Whopper at their stores . . .
Evidently Psystar is playing the United States Lawsuit Lottery. Not getting the results you wanted? Pick another court and try again!
Mormegil, surely you’d be suing McDonald’s for not letting you buy a Big Mac at a Burger King?
>I think I’ll sue McDonald’s for not letting me buy a Whopper at their stores . . .
I think what you meant to say “I’ll sue Burger King for not letting other non-Burger King stores sell whoppers.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
This company is being funded by Microsoft. Can’t wait for the obvious to be revealed in court.
@It’s About Time: It can’t possibly be Microsoft. Microsoft would never do something as legally questionable as this.
Why doesn’t psystar make their own os instead of trying to steal apple’s? I hope psystar goes down in flames. I’m all for competition but then make your own product to compete, don’t try and rip off someone else.
The Psystar case is all good training for some junior lawyer on an internship at Infinite Loop….
@It’s About Time
I don’t understand how it would benefit Microsoft to participate in this. As I see it, if the courts were to rule against Apple and force them to license their operating system to other OEM manufacturers, Microsoft would all of a sudden gain a competitor where it now has a monopoly. I think that would be a huge loss for Microsoft which has repeatedly demonstrated that it is unable to compete without a monopoly stranglehold.
@ Alec
Based on these comments from Groklaw, I’m convinced that Microsoft is indeed involved somehow, just not in the way you’d expect.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090829201948789
Psystar has no intention of claiming *all* EULAs are unenforceable, so those of you dreaming that this was their goal need to stop this exact minute. The lack of privity and lack of consideration are also claims antiGPL netkooks have been claiming make the GPL unenforceable, by the way, for years. What a coincidence. But Microsoft EULA’s can continue, I gather, as far as Psystar is concerned; only Apple has no rights against Psystar’s violations. How convenient.
[…] the copyright preemption claim, I believe, is primarily an anti Open Source move. If you recall, SCO tried a similar claim that the GPL preempts copyright law and was therefore unconstitutional in the SCO v. IBM case. Eben Moglen called it a frivolous claim, writing that such a claim would invalidate the Apache license, the BSD license, and most FOSS licenses, including Microsoft’s Shared Source licenses. But what if that is exactly the goal? SCO later dropped it as a separate claim, but it continues to argue that the GPL is preempted by the Copyright Act. That is yet to be ruled on in the SCO v. IBM case, stayed by the SCO bankruptcy. Don’t you find it strange that both cases argue the same way, with the same apparent goal?
@ Gabriel:
RE: Groklaw’s quote, No, it’s not strange that both cases argue the same point trying to get the same goal. SCO’s claims were never litigated to a judgment, and lawyers are notorious for copying what other lawyers did that was successful. SCO’s litigation was successful to the point it reached (it got into court and the claim was being litigated and wasn’t dismissed).
Also, when you don’t have a real claim, try using someone else’s strategy. That’s what Psystar is trying to do. Their argument is ridiculous – it doesn’t matter how Apple is tying OS X to Apple hardware; it matters whether Apple has the right to restrict which hardware OS X can be installed on.
C’mmon, big money, no whammies!
In a way I feel sorry for Psystar as they are pissing off Judge Alsup even more, with this Florida case. Feel Sorry! NOT!
Pissing off a Federal Judge that is going to be ruling on a case that you are a Plaintiff or Defendant in is not a good practice. There is still Apple summery ruling request that Judge Alsup hasn’t ruled on. Their are ethics and missing/destroyed evidence issues pending against Psystar that Judge Alsup as not yet ruled on. Their was the Bankruptcy delay tactic that Judge Alsup as not ruled on. Now their is this new Florida complaint against Apple by Psystar that is likely to be dismissed with prejudice by either the Florida Judge or transfered to Judge Alsup who will unquestionably dismiss it with prejudice.
My Mom is a Federal Judge for the 9th Circuit as she has always told me never piss off the Judge. At this point Psystar is not only pissing off Judge Alsup they are basically pissing on Judge Alsup and his authority over the case. Expect Psystar to get pissed on by Judge Alsup at the end of this case if not sooner.
All those advancing this Burger King/McDonald analogies need to get their logic in order. There is nothing comparable to what Apple is doing in the fast food realm. If there were, it would be something like a McDonald’s policy that said that Big Macs could only be purchased as Value Meals together with fries and Coke and eaten inside the McDonald’s restaurant. And if by some fluke you managed to get a Big Mac by itself, Apple could sue you if you ate it outside of their restaurant with fries and/or soda not made by them. If McDonalds did that, you’d all be up in arms, but since Apple is doing it, then it must be OK.
@ bobsyeruncle,
Dude. You’re an eejit. You’re analogy is worthless and derogatory. (see true analogy below).
What Apple is doing is what any electronics manufacturer does.
Example: how many electronic gadgets require an OS to operate? Your fax machine. Your phone. Your digital watch. Even the electronics in your car. A Kindle. An airliner. Etc.
How many of those OS’s are proprietary and are tied to their hardware? Virtually EVERY ONE.
Who is suing all those gadget and software makers telling them to decouple the hardware from the OS? — NO ONE!
BEcAUSE IT’S ABSURD!
EVERY ELECTRONICS COMPANY HAS THE RIGHT TO PUT THEIR OWN OS INSIDE THEIR HARDWARE. And to make it proprietary. PERIOD.
This applies to the Mac as much as anywhere else.
Your fast food analogy would be that McDonald’s is required to give away or license its patented BIG MAC name and its Big Mac recipe to Burger King and anyone else. THAT IS THE PSYSTAR SUIT!
Go read about what happened the last time the Mac OS was licensed out to third party manufacturers and you’ll understand why it would destroy the Mac platform if they were forced to do it again.
I was born and raised in Miami. I moved away recently. Psystar is just trying to get rich by suing Apple. This is what “gente” in Miami do. They have no competence and they sell their soul they can live in sunshine and not have to learn to speak english. So, if the faulty business fails…sue your way to money..it can’t be your fault for crying out loud…you have a cool tan.
Need proof? How well is Psystar’s Linux and Windows box effort going? If their product is soooo good they must be making millions off those products…right?
just my $0.02
“Psystar alleges, in its Florida complaint, that it utilizes a different circumvention method for Snow Leopard. Apple doubts this is true. A prompt review of Psystar’s source code will answer this question.”
Oops.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
Psystar: This new complaint is different because Apple changed their protections. We had to write new code.
Apple: Prove it. Show your old and new code.
Psystar: Er…
@Mac84
Sorry, but your analogy is all wet. None of the electronic manufacturers you mention sell their operating systems at retail separately from the devices. The issue in the Psystar case is simple: whether Apple’s SLA which comes with retail copies of OSX and says that the software can only be installed on Apple branded computers is enforceable or not. If it is, Psystar loses, if it isn’t Psystar wins. No one is trying to force Apple to “decouple the hardware from the OS,” because that would really mean that someone would be suing them to force them to permit another OS in the hardware. And no lawsuit could force Apple to sell OSX at retail if they didn’t want to. The sole issue in the case is to what extent Apple can restrict what a lawful purchaser of OSX can do with their purchase.
It is slightly more complicated with Snow Leopard only because the Snow Leopard SLA also says that you can only install it on an Apple branded computer with Leopard installed, so to prevail Psystar would have to have purchased retail copies of both Leopard and Snow Leopard. But even here, I note that it is amusing that the whole Mac community seems to be fine advising Tiger users to violate the SLA and install Snow Leopard on their machines when that is no different than what Psystar is doing.
And I find it interesting, in a way, that Apple is relying solely on the SLA when it would be so simple for them to put something in the install routine that would abort the install if it were attempted on non-Apple hardware. If they did that, they’d have a slam dunk anti-circumvention case under the DMCA if Psystar tried to crack that. Strange that they chose not to do that.
And don’t think that I’m an Apple hater. To the contrary, I have never owned a computer that wasn’t made by Apple since I bought the Apple ][+ in 1982. I simply am not an unquestioning cheerleader for them and I’m not afraid to say that they are wrong when I think that they are.
One more thing: I think that this lawsuit by Psystar has no chance given that it is based on anti-trust grounds. Case after case has held that Apple’s market share is too small for it to have monopoly power. Psystar keeps trying to narrow the definition of the market from “computers” to something smaller, but they keep failing and probably will keep failing. This case is a loser for them for that reason alone. But I still think that they have at least a 50/50 shot of winning the California case (which turns on the enforceability of the SLA).
@ bobsyeruncle
Psystar’s chances of winning in Judge Alsup court is less then 5%. Why? It’s simple really Judge Alsup’s history of applying the law and previous presidents. The Law and case law is on Apple’s side. There as been NO Federal court ruling that has ever made a EULA invalid that was no over turned on appeal.
The fact that Apple sells retail copies Upgrade or not has no barring on the law. EULA are ruled on based on the Federal torts (or contract law), Even Psystar’s own Hackintoshs comes with a EULA. As for Apple’s DMCA claim Apple can make the protection as weak as it wants to. The Law saids if you crack it as Psystar as done they are guilty under the Law.
Psystar is trying to delay the trial in Judge Alsup court for only one reason and that is their Attorney as told them they will loose and to settle with Apple before they do. I’d be interested to learn what Attorney filed the Florida Case against Apple. I’d bet it was a different attorney then in the California case.
Up next Psystar get’s new attorneys in it’s case in Judge Alsup court.
There is a lawyers saying “If you do not have the law on your side argue the facts, if you do not have the facts on your side argue the law, if neither bang on the table”. The plaintiff table in Judge Alsup’s court is taking a beating.