Konami® Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 A federal judge last week ruled that Psystar Corp. can continue its countersuit against Apple Inc., giving the Mac clone maker a rare win in its seven-month-old battle with Apple. He also hinted that if Psystar proves its allegations, others may then be free to sell computers with Mac OS X already installed. In an order signed on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup gave Psystar the go-ahead to amend its lawsuit against Apple. According to Alsup, Psystar may change that countersuit, which originally accused Apple of breaking antitrust laws, to instead ague that Apple has stretched copyright laws by tying the Mac operating system to its hardware. Alsup had tossed Psystar's antitrust charges in November 2008, but left the door open to a modified complaint. Psystar took advantage of the opportunity, and filed a revised lawsuit in mid-December. Apple, however, had hoped to quash Psystar's revision, saying that the Florida company "attempts to repackage its dismissed antitrust allegations under the guise of copyright misuse." On Friday, Alsup said that Psystar could continue to press its once-dismissed case. "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop," Alsup said in his ruling. Apple started the legal wrangling in July when it said Psystar broke copyright and software-licensing laws by selling Intel-based computers with Mac OS X 10.5 preinstalled. Psystar has been selling machines equipped with Apple's operating system since April 2008. Alsup also said that if Psystar proves that Apple abused copyright laws, some of Apple's charges against the company would be moot. He also seemed to say that that others would then be free to follow in Psystar's footsteps. "Moreover, if established, misuse would bar enforcement (for the period of misuse) not only as to defendants who are actually party to the challenged license but also as to potential defendants not themselves injured by the misuse who may have similar interests," said Alsup in his ruling. The judge did not name the "potential defendants," but in previous filings, Apple has claimed that Psystar was not acting alone. "Persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities described in this amended complaint," said Apple in a November filing. At the time, Apple only referred to those individuals or corporations as John Does 1 through 10. Apple said it would reveal the names when it uncovered them. Alsup also acknowledged Apple's argument that it had the right to decide how its software was licensed and used, but said that that would have to be decided as the case plays out. He did reject Psystar's attempt to include state unfair competition charges to its countersuit, however. Psystar has a week to submit its altered counterclaims, after which Apple must answer within 20 days. Alsup also told the two parties to get to work. "Both sides should be taking discovery and preparing themselves for trial and/or summary judgment," the judge concluded. The case is currently scheduled to begin trial on Nov. 9. Source: Computer World Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Descalzo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Apple said it would reveal the names when it uncovered them. That makes sense! In other news, Apple said it would pay its employees when it compensated them. And that Snow Leopard would be ready when it was prepared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konami® Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 That makes sense! In other news, Apple said it would pay its employees when it compensated them. And that Snow Leopard would be ready when it was prepared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lostgame Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Heh, this is actually really sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neilis Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 That makes sense! In other news, Apple said it would pay its employees when it compensated them. And that Snow Leopard would be ready when it was prepared. Guess we interpreted thier statement differently. I read it as basically just "You'll know when we know.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Chief Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Bad news for Apple, and there is more coming from this lady: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kroes/index_en.html Who wants to join me and sign my antitrust petition? Note: I have e-mailed her office and asked to call me to arrange a meeting a.s.a.p. Please do not reply here, but wait for me to add an e-mail address in a new posting (setup for the petition). Thank you. p.s. There is another post with exactly the same text?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Descalzo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Guess we interpreted thier statement differently. I read it as basically just "You'll know when we know.". I know. It's a subtle difference between 'uncover' and 'reveal.' But it sure sounded funny to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedfreaK Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 how is it even possible that a judge can decide that a piece of software made by apple (who says that it may be installed on apple computers only (and they have the right to say that because it's their piece of software)) can be installed on a normal pc. what kind of {censored} is that? this will not hold further in court and i'm sure that apple will win this battle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopeyo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 "In American, everything that is not forbidden is allowed." If Apple doesn't want me to try to install OS X on my PC, my toaster, my coffee table or my washing machine, they shouldn't sell their software in stores. I don't expect Apple to be responsible for damage to my washing machine, but once I buy the software, if I want to use it as a coaster, that's my right. Washing machine, coaster, Hackintosh, what's the difference? I recall a famous warning on a lawnmower "Do not use this machine as a hand-held hedge trimmer." Why the heck not? It might work. It might not. (I didn't say I was smart.....) Now, if I'm stupid enough to buy a Psystar Hackintosh, and Psystar has included a legal copy of Leopard, should I go running to Apple for support? No. Should Apple support me? No. Microsoft has the same relationship with Dell: Call Dell if you've got a problem. Everything that is not forbidden is allowed. EULA's are not law. Your mileage may vary. Offer not available in all jurisdictions. Order today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konami® Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 "In American, everything that is not forbidden is allowed." If Apple doesn't want me to try to install OS X on my PC, my toaster, my coffee table or my washing machine, they shouldn't sell their software in stores. I don't expect Apple to be responsible for damage to my washing machine, but once I buy the software, if I want to use it as a coaster, that's my right. Washing machine, coaster, Hackintosh, what's the difference? I recall a famous warning on a lawnmower "Do not use this machine as a hand-held hedge trimmer." Why the heck not? It might work. It might not. (I didn't say I was smart.....) Now, if I'm stupid enough to buy a Psystar Hackintosh, and Psystar has included a legal copy of Leopard, should I go running to Apple for support? No. Should Apple support me? No. Microsoft has the same relationship with Dell: Call Dell if you've got a problem. Everything that is not forbidden is allowed. EULA's are not law. Your mileage may vary. Offer not available in all jurisdictions. Order today. I agree in some way with you, but you have to remember that you buy a license not the software itself, do you understand what this means? it means that in order to use this software you have to agree to use it when you install the software and you have to read the agreement which says all the rules that you need to follow. But I agree that when you buy it, use it legally or not, you spent that money and Apple is not watching you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedfreaK Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 yeah but there is a difference in installing it yourself or buying it preinstalled. those companies make profit of apple's property Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontifex22 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 You might find V Plamondons thread on EULA legality of interest: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php...=112611&hl= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterHaas Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 At the time, Apple only referred to those individuals or corporations as John Does 1 through 10. It is common practice to refer to unnamed defendants as "John Does 1 through 100 and Richard Roes 1 through 100", or equivalent references, and then to "pray" for the complaint to be amended when and if the true identities of Does and Roes are discovered. Perhaps Apple knows their true identities already. Perhaps some of the participants here may be among them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxintosh Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This is nothing, and all it says is that they can stay in court. Well whoop-de-doo. *Yawn* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopeyo Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I agree in some way with you, but you have to remember that you buy a license not the software itself, do you understand what this means? it means that in order to use this software you have to agree to use it when you install the software and you have to read the agreement which says all the rules that you need to follow. But I agree that when you buy it, use it legally or not, you spent that money and Apple is not watching you I don't agree that I bought a license, but you're right, Apple thinks I did. Until a court tells me otherwise, I consider that I bought a DVD that contains intellectual property. (I don't own that intellectual property, so I can't fiddle with it and re-sell it as OSX-Improved!). If I want to pop that into the toaster, I should be able to. If Apple really wanted to convince me that all I own is a license, they could sell me a floppy disc that boots up my machine, connects to Apple, takes my money, and downloads their software. /snark My point is that until a court tells us otherwise, we ought to consider that we are entitled to install a legal copy of OS X on anything it will run on. Why should we cede our right to experiment without a convincing case? That only stifles creativity. My understanding of copyright is that copyright and patents exist to foster creativity. Profit and market position are only secondary. I respect Apple's right to make a profit, they make some of the best machines available. You get what you pay for. I'm being deliberately obtuse here, of course. My real agenda is that I find it fun and exciting to run the world's most elegant OS on various pieces of junk. Unfortunately, my right to experiment with OSX also endorses Psystar's right to install OS X on their lumpen-boxen. I've loved Macs since 1985, owned many, but I'm not giving Apple the right to dictate to me, without a fight. And I'm not buying a Psystar. I prefer an Apple. My solution to the Psystar mess in a perfect world: Apple should license any company to install OS X on any PC, provided that the PC has a large, non-removable label on the front that says "This is NOT Apple-approved hardware. If it breaks (and it will break), don't come crying to us. If you want the true Apple experience, buy an Apple, not this junk." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Plamondon Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Perhaps Apple knows their true identities already. Perhaps some of the participants here may be among them? They know the true identity of at least one individual as I have informed them of my identity. It may be awhile before I know for sure if they are going to add me to the lawsuit. Additionally, anyone in the OSX86 and/or Hackintosh hobbyist communities, would qualify as the aforementioned "John Does". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SManuella Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 This is nothing, and all it says is that they can stay in court. Well whoop-de-doo. *Yawn* yep, stay in court and continue to sell their stuff apple limiting the install of his OS is like offering a sport car to someone and asking to not drive over 60 MPH; of course no body is driving under 60. asking user not to install OS X on other than a MAC will be difficult to control. Apple has the choice to stop selling the OS X DVD and just provide their OS X pre-installed. No one can impose how people can use their goods unless it is not safe for them. If other than MAC machines could explode upon installation of Mac OS X I would understand their license. I love MAC but I think they will make the same mistakes over and over limiting their market share. They don't just see that the clones will help them gain more market share as people will see that these clones are not optimized nor stable. Once you buy these clones, all you want is to buy the original, trust me. they had a great opportunity with crapy Vista, many PC user were so frustrated, they would considered switching if they had the opportunity to install OSX and try it on their PC. Personally I will not buy a clone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R.MnTnA Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 another article found similar on The Register Hackintosh maker lands Apple punch http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/10/ps...suit_continues/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatZilla Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 So wrong about "unstable" clones. It is possible to pick up parts with great compatibility (from newegg, for example) with OS X, install a TOTALLY vanilla OS X on it (with the exception of boot loader) and receive official updates from apple just like that. There could be many different 100% compatible configurations, and people will readily buy clones, because they are just as good and cost 50% less. Of course, I personally would not buy a clone, but for the simple reason that I like to know what's in my box and I like to do everything myself, from scratch, without big company support or anything of the sort. PS Message written on a hackintosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redratfish Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 long live Psystar am with you all the way. cut the beast throat. amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishduck Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 how is it even possible that a judge can decide that a piece of software made by apple (who says that it may be installed on apple computers only (and they have the right to say that because it's their piece of software)) can be installed on a normal pc. what kind of {censored} is that? this will not hold further in court and i'm sure that apple will win this battle You should become a judge, because your understanding of anti-trust laws it astounding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts