Apple Sues Psystar for Copyright Infringement

[JustinTD]

*** UPDATE ****

 

Apple has declined to use a Magistrate judge and is requesting this case to go before a US District judge ...

 

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/distr...03251/204881/3/

[digitalr0gue]

If anyone is interested, this is a link to an Information Week article about the Blizzard vs. MDY case, which Blizzard just won, and sets a VERY interresting precedence that could relate to this Apple issue...

 

Things just keep getting more interesting.

[Maxintosh]

Apple has declined to use a Magistrate judge and is requesting this case to go before a US District judge ...

Yeah we saw that train coming down the tracks

[JustinTD]

I can argue in favor of Blizz on that one ... you cant play WoW in single player mode, and you do pay a recurring fee to use teh software. In a sense, you are licensing it, not mention you do have to agree to the ToS, and in paying to play I would think that is definitive proof that you agree to the TOS.

[digitalr0gue]

I don't believe the ACPI Multiproccesor HAL in XP Pro would physically allow 4 discrete CPUs to run anyways, it would just utilize 2; therefore being in violation of the EULA wouldn't even be possible. I believe that one needs to use a Windows Server Enterprise edition (not standard) or better to use 4 physical CPUs

 

Yup. Cut this from the Technet page on the x64 versions of XP Pro/Server 2003, which applies in kind to 32 bit versions.

• Windows Server 2003 Datacenter x64 Edition supports up to 64 processors.
  
• Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition supports up to 8 processors.
  
• Windows Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition supports up to 4 processors.
  
• Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports up to 2 processors.
  

Adding more than that will simply do nothing. The HAL interface will not report the CPU. It requires kernel-level changes to add additional processors at that point.

[Descalzo]

I've been thinking about this one for a little while, and I once again noticed that many people keep saying the same thing:

Apple is a hardware company

I don't think this is so anymore. ASUS is a hardware company. Uniwill is a hardware company. Apple doesn't make much from what I can tell. My MBP came in a box that says "Designed by Apple in California." They are not a company. It might be more accurate to say they are a design company. The best of all is: they are a BRAND.

 

Think about it: Apple's dominance of their little niche depends on their having almost a religious impact on their users. Some MacHeads are like Catholics in their staunchness (I'd rather die than....), like Jehovah's Witnesses in their willingness to argue about it, like Mormons in their constant need to tell EVERYONE how awesome their Mac is, and like Jews in their belief that they are The Chosen Ones. Many, many MacHeads believe they are objectively smarter than PC users.

 

I think this would also explain why they let fora like this one go on: we are preaching the gospel.

[Sevan]

and here we go again with the OSx86 argument. It isn't our fault Apple doesn't make their EULA clear.

[digitalr0gue]

and here we go again with the OSx86 argument. It isn't our fault Apple doesn't make their EULA clear.

 

lol, I can count on one hand the number of clear proprietary EULAs I have read. Even open-source license agreements take a little reading up on to fully understand these days - so many license models out there... GPL, LGPL, CC, Berkely... the list goes on...

[mwgdrwg]

It was fun trying the 'Hackintosh' route just to try the OSX system without having to commit by buying an Apple product.

 

When all is said and done, I'm sticking with Microsoft and Vista and XP.

 

Somehow whenever I was on the OSX system, I felt like I was driving a computer with training wheels attached.

 

Are you having a laugh?

 

It's really slick.

 

I'm even considering buying a macbook - where have you heard that before?

 

The foundation of os x is Free BSD which is a great deal less susceptible to virii, malware etc.

 

Good luck.

 

edit - forgot to add more context, Geeze's quote is in reference to a comment about Microsoft bailing Apple out along time ago.

 

Around the time Steve Jobs returned to Apple, Apple had faced the attack of the clones. It nearly bankrupted Apple. Steve being the quick witted lad he is called uncle Bill. Uncle Bill bought 100 non-voting shares of Apple and made his geeks conjoured Bill and Steve's love child: Internet Explorer for Mac. During that time, Steve announced it at MacWorld, and Bill was on the big screen. He was boo'd crazy for that, and Uncle Bill promised MS Office would be updated more regularly on the Mac too.

That sums it up.

indeed... And let us bow our heads and prey.

 

"lord, please guide my sweet righteous hand of justice to give it a perfect bitchslap unto rudy's face so he will know to never release a product before consulting a lawyer. "

 

he could at least called his hackintosh an open computer since day one and spent more time testing than weekend and a bag of pot. seriously, psystar fails 2 fold, they called it the open mac on opening day, and the guy diddnt chill out with it long enough to see the fans were to freaking loud and they let the phones ring to much. they needed to be more prepared for this kinda ballsy {censored}, it amazes me they built a server. from what i understand a os x 10.5x server is not a very supported hackintoshing.

 

Good luck to all with our franken boxen

 

Dr. D

 

LOL :D

[PGHammer]

EFI???????????? When did efi become Apple property? It is a standard developed by intel and is now under UEFI group or alliance or whatever you will call it. Apple has made some own EFI apps and drivers, but they are not used in the hacks and not in psystar computer. What is Apple property is many parts of the OS X os. Also their brandname, hardware (design) is their or in part their intellectual property.

 

And there are Hackintoshes that don't use EFI whatever. In fact, there are machines running Leopard today that boot from MBR partitions (not using Chameleon, either). So I doubt seriously that EFI is the basis for their complaint. I suspect it's more the upgrade-license-being-sold-as-OEM bugaboo (which is something that the BSA has used to great effect, especially in California), especially when, as in this case, when an OEM version of the software is deliberately difficult, or impossible, to obtain legally (which is exactly the case with OS X).

 

However, this could very easily backfire in the absolutely worst way on Apple (as in winning the battle but losing the war), especially since Apple wants more apps for the iPhone. Pissing off the core of the targeted developers (most of which aren't big or even medium business) by raping their wallets (which is exactly what Apple has *repeatedly* accused Microsoft of doing) would basically tell the developers that Apple cares only about THEIR profits, not the profits of the developers.

 

There is precedent for exactly that sort of occurrence: Solaris for x86. At one point, Sun was about to kill it (though Sun hardly ever charged for it at the time, as Sun saw it as a loss-leader compared to Sun for SPARC), and the Solaris development community (a surprisingly large portion not only cutting their development teeth on Solaris for x86, but actually using the product in businesses from home-based to extra-large) told Sun that if you do that, we'll take Solaris for SPARC down too via bad PR. Sun was forced to surrender and *not* kill Solaris for x86 (which is fully concurrent with Solaris for SPARC and still the only true UNIX for either x86 or x64 that is, for most uses, absolutely free).

 

Is this a war that Apple really wants to win?

[MrMookMook]

What I found odd was that in the lawsuit (download here http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/vid...-complaint.pdf) they requested a Jury Trial. Do they think that the Jury is going to sympathize with the big, evil multinational company or the small start up business?

[el_xero]

Why dont you tweak me a way to disable one monitor at a time using dual monitors? Honestly i like using mac but it is windows prettier, little, weaker brother.

 

 

0_0 did he just say the unix based osx is weaker than win? lol This is not an insult but in a way i think your blaming your own limitations on the os like that last guy commented lol. I pledge no alliance to any corporation apple m$ etc i use all os's and so far linux and unix are phenom They are power at your finger tips "IF" you know what you're doing.. personally thank god for the training weels it kept me interested long enough to actually LEARN to use the stuff. weaker "brother"... haha you're funny. BTW just my opin i mean no offence.

[Maxintosh]

Do they think that the Jury is going to sympathize with the big, evil multinational company or the small start up business?

Jurors who are biased or prejudiced one way or the other will be screened out.

 

I'm wondering how they'll screen them out according to the operating system they use

[el_xero]

I bet none of thos Mac clone users are going to send anything back... if this be the case .... what does that tell you ?

 

 

Hell I wouldnt sent it back if I had one, and I'm not buying an other mac. The software is great! the hardware.. apprently recent, ones seems to suck somewhat.. I read about ancient macs still running strong today and My mini dies in under 2+1/2 years? There I was working away and click.. it shuts off and that was it! no warning no nothing just click and its dead whats up with that? I've got a compact here built before 1998 still running!!!!! yet an other gateway in a card board box (I cant find a proper proprietary case for the darn thing) running on 98megs of ram STILL RUNNING!!!!!while apple ipods keyboards (2) and mac mini cant make it past the honeymoon? NOW Im reading about my mac mini not being electronically sound? that I can burn the darn thing just by plugging something into the usb?.. by plugging in the friggin monitor? its not grounded properly etc what is up with that apple?.. uh uh sorry I did not spend $$ for that! and im not buying any more especially now that i've got it running nicely on my DELL muuuhahaha (kinda over did it there with the evil laugh).. And I dont even care about upgrading for the time being every thing i need runs nice and dandy on my 10.5.4 so you can keep your expensive failing hardware apple thanks but no thanks i've lost enough!

[John the Geek]

Jurors who are biased or prejudiced one way or the other will be screened out.

 

I'm wondering how they'll screen them out according to the operating system they use

 

It shouldn't matter. A jury should be impartial and view the case within the constrains of the law as it stands today. If the case proves that Psystar violated a law then the jury is obligated to convict, regardless of how the jurors feel about EULAs, hardware ties to software licensing, or Richard Stallman and his communistic view of intellectual property.

 

A court of law and the court of opinion are two different animals.

[Maxintosh]

A jury should be impartial and view the case within the constrains of the law as it stands today.

Yes they should, but they are also human.

 

Time for both sides to weed out the ying from the yang.

[el_xero]

My Hack is a testbed of all things Apple. I've already got a Mini, and will replace my laptop with a MacBook Pro eventually. The Mac Pro is beyond my means as well, especially since I just built my current Rackintosh as a XP gamer/DAW a year ago and can't see spending the money (which I don't have). But I'll tell you, if Apple goes all heavy-handed on the hobbyist community and spends significant amounts of resources on enforcement that could be better suited to improving their products, it will be a cold day in hell before I give them what amounts to a used car for the top end of their hardware.

 

 

AMEN to that and I couldn't have said it better myself! I love the software and use it more than any other os as of now but I'm tried of giving them money for failing hardware! I may just be unlucky but the fact remains that my outdates ancient pc hardware has outlasted NEW/mordern apple hardware I'm broke and im not giving them a penny more for junk thats going to {censored} out on me druing normal use! I've got the retail version of the os its mine i payed for it ill do what i want with it sorry apple but you screwed me so {censored} off! lol

 

I always found it amusing, the "copyright violation" that occurred between PCEFI and Psystar. Considering the software that was legally dubious to begin with.....

 

Anyway, In this case, I hope apple looses. Using the car argument, This is tantamount to saying You can buy this car, but you can only drive it on these roads. And you are not allowed to take the engine and put it in any other car. If you do, we will sue.

 

I mean holy {censored}, when is this all going to end. I blame Amazon for starting this. Can you imagine Ford or Chevrolet saying such things in their first thirty years of existence? Pretty brazen, pretty bold.

 

This is a case that Apple needs to loose for the benefit of anyone who uses a computer. Why dont they want people to buy OSX? I thought there was much better margins in software than hardware.

 

Apple, Sell your hardware. People will buy it just for the aesthetics, and to be able to say they have a real mac. Your hardware is beautiful (except for mac pro, IMHO) and the market you sell it to is different than the people like us.

 

PLEASE FOR GODS SAKE dont make us go back to windows. I think I'd rather use CP/M. Except for 8" floppies. I hated those. PLEASE let us buy and use OS/X legally. We want your product. You want to sell it. We are a match made in....somewhere...Purgatory, perhaps?

 

-w00f

 

Agreed! Hell I'd buy an other copy of the OS "Just to have it sitting there looking all original and {censored}" I know some people who never bought an os in their life who said point blank that they would buy it! I was shocked! I'm hating their hardware right now seriously! lol

 

Thats like another argument I read comparing them to a hammer. You're off base here. A car has multiple purposes and many options are available at the time of purchase. You AREN'T buying the software, you are buying a license to USE the software; you do however BUY the car, not the license to use it. Once you purchase an item, in it's entirety, you can do with it as you will since you now own it. When you buy an OS, you buy a license to use the OS under the agreement that you will abide by the EULA. Once you stop complying with the EULA, the license cancels usually as a result of the EULA and you can no longer use the software since it's not licensed.

 

People need to be able to make this distinction. You buy OSX, you own the disc, but not the contents. You are licensed to use the contents. If your license is yanked, bye bye OSX.

 

To paraphrase your example, you bought a car, you can drive it where ever you want provided you don't break the law. You lose your license, can you still LEGALLY drive? No. Same thing, you own the disc, you don't own the right to the software, can you use it? No.

 

A great example to this argument is the difference between financing and leasing a car. You finance a car, you own (well you and the bank that paid for it.) You can do anything you want to it. If you lease a car, the dealership still owns it (and the bank holds a lien on it), but you can't do anything you like. You are restricted on your mileage, you can't modify the car in anyway, and in alot of cases you have to follow their service agreements. If you fail to comply, when your lease is up you get hit with fees. Same concept here.

 

 

I hear all of what you're saying and my hat goes off to the genius who came upwith this whole idea! He/she is truly brilliant (I think it was some M$ person) but I still think they should have gotten life! for making the rest of our lives difficult haha

 

What I found odd was that in the lawsuit (download here http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/vid...-complaint.pdf) they requested a Jury Trial. Do they think that the Jury is going to sympathize with the big, evil multinational company or the small start up business?

 

 

haha depends on the jury and who they voted for hahaha kidding

[Maxintosh]

Using the car argument...

Tell a judge you're comparing a car with intellectual property and he'll laugh right in your face. The general rule is that the author of the work owns the copyright.

 

Guess who wrote Apples OS X?

 

'nuff said

[MrMookMook]

Yes they should, but they are also human.

 

That is the exact point I was trying to make. They should be impartial but as they are human they will have feelings and that will always affect their decision.

[Maxintosh]

But I'll tell you, if Apple goes all heavy-handed on the hobbyist community and spends significant amounts of resources on enforcement that could be better suited to improving their products, it will be a cold day in hell before I give them what amounts to a used car for the top end of their hardware.

You are free to shoot yourself in the foot all you want.

 

...and Apple is free to protect their products.

[dillon31292]

You are free to shoot yourself in the foot all you want.

 

...and Apple is free to protect their products.

Protect them from what? From making them billions of dollars by licensing it to Dell or a similar company?

[Maxintosh]

Protect them from what?

In regards to this thread, they have a right to protect their product from companies like Psystar. That's the law. Learn it, instead of trying to reinvent it.

 

From making them billions of dollars by licensing it to Dell or a similar company?

What part of 'their product' confuses you? They can license it, or not license it, to whom ever they please. It's not a hard concept for adults to grasp.

[JustinTD]

Re: trial by Jury. If you think a jury is impartial, take a look in the criminal law casebooks ... in ALOT of cases, while the state was able to establish its prima-facia case, the jury still found a defendant not guilty. Don't forget, the judge (at least in cirminal term, not 100% sure on civil term, I would have to look it up) has the ability, provided a motion is made by the defense, to set aside a guilty verdict if the judge believes the jury was in fact not impartial. I havent researched alot of case law where his has happened, so I do not know if it is limited to defense only. But regardless, no jury is 100% impartial. That is part of the process which is why it is "a jury of your peers" ... the makers of the justice system understood that a jury, while asked to impartial, was likely not going to be able to do so; hence, they wanted the counter-argument of "Well they didn't like me becuase of who I am and what I did, and they are people who are sympathtic to the plantiff not me" to be moot, and the only way to do that is to allow both to have a say in jury selection, and have the jury comprised of the defendants "peers".

 

Re: the car analogy. Since this keeps popping up. The real issue here is one that EULA arguments in court have dealt with since day 1. Do you own the software, or the license? In the case of buying a car, once you buy/finance a car, you become the legal owner of it (non withstanding a bank lien). The dealership cannot stipulate anything past that. They can dictate terms of a warranty which would preclude certain things in order to maintain your warranty, but that is the extent of their ability. Conversely, if you lease the car you do NOT own it, and as such the dealership can place any restrictions they want on you. Same with renting a car (which essentially a lease is a long rental period.) If the courts in general begin deciding that you own the software, then EULA's go out the "windows" (ha ha pun!) and people can do whatever they want. In the strictest sense of this, you would be able to install Windows on as many machines as you like, activation would be illegal since it forces you to abide by the EULA which is not legal, and all hell would break loose. This is, of course, an extreme example; but you can see where the ruling would allow people to argue this point. What truely needs to be done is the courts need to set precedent involving limitations (definitive limitations) on what can appear and be upheld in an EULA.

 

Re: OEM vs full vs upgrade. I would like to challenge Apples claim that the store bought software is an upgrade. Lemme give you some background history. In CT, there is an assault weapons ban which defines what is an assault weapon and what isn't. One phrase in this ban states "AK-47 type rifles". How do you define AK-47 "TYPE"? Well, the CT general statutes say you have to look to the common definitiion of a word when the meaning with in the law is not clear ... well the meaning of TYPE is a group of items which share similar characteristics and/or functions. So, the State Police developed the following theory: If the rifle a) looks like an AK, functions like an AK, c) can readily accept parts from an AK and vice versa, it is an AK type rifle. The courts have upheld this descision multiple times. How does this play into OEM etc? well, the established market use of the word upgrade (regarding software anyways) is a piece of software designed to update an older piece of software WHICH REQUIRES A COPY OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION. Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, XP, and Vista all require previous copies to be either ready on hand for verification, or actually installed in order to update. In various other software types, you need to have a license number on hand to install and upgrade 'clean'. The store bought version of OSX does not ask for your old disk, can be installed 'clean' and requires no proof of previous licensing. That sounds like a full install to me and not an upgrade.

 

EDIT - BTW, the court has agreed to the change from magistrate to distroct judge, it will now appear in San Francisco district court under Hon William Alsup.

[Maxintosh]

That sounds like a full install to me and not an upgrade.

That's a good point, but they still violated the section that says:

You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

 

it will now appear in San Francisco district court under Hon William Alsup.

I'm sure Apple is happy

[netkas]

this lawsuit is {censored}.

 

psystar alsready seeling it's headquaters.

 

they will just disappear as company and will make new one, they actualy made it already, that new company like psystart, from florida, i'm sure it's founded by Pedraza too, this new company will work till apple will sue it, then they will close it and found new company again.