Apple Sues Psystar for Copyright Infringement

And as I stated before, there are versions of Windows that do none of those things but are still classified as an upgrade. I have a copy in my office. There is no software standards board that states how a system upgrade has to behave.

 

Besides, let's say you're right and Apple loses that defense. Do you think they'll pat you on the back and start selling more copies of OS X for Dells? Hell no. They'll make it a Software Upgrade package you will have to buy on iTunes or something stupid like that. You won't get what you want, and you'll only have succeeded in making everyone's life more difficult.

 

You can argue semantics all you want, but in the end it's still Apple's software and they get to decide what you do with it legally.

Hey Chief, let's get something clear. I am not for or against apple on PC. Would it be nice, sure, but its their call. I have never made a claim one way or the other, and I would appreciate if you didn't infer my intent when you dont know it.

While there are of course exceptions, think about the standard. You buy the Adobe Acorbat update, you need the serial from the previous version. My point was that as a whole, people owuld consider an upgrade as an update to an existing software setup which would infer a previous copy in your possesion.

I am not arguing whether they have a leg to stand on RE: the EULA or not ... thats 50/50 and i have tons of case law to back that up. What I am saying is look at the potential scenarios taht COULD arise here:

1. Apple wins, EULA's are legal. While there is plenty of opposite precedent, this would more than likely set a new standard.

2. Apple loses the EULA argument, this opens up all EULA's to be challenged when they are based on licensing.

Simple.

Now if I don't have an opinion shouldn't I not post?

I am concerned about the impact on OSx86 hope nothing bad happens to it.

Apple surely knows hell has no fury worse than a haxor ( no I am not one) denied.

Psystar is the Good guy. Apple's EULA is illegal. Anybody can write anything and call it an EULA. But, laws of the state take precedence.

Laws state you cannot bind two separately sold products together and require purchaser of one to buy the other. Simple. There's no way

out for Apple. If Apple won, then Microsoft would reopen its case also using Apple's to fight for IE in Windows once again. Can't have it both

ways. Either's it's right to bind A to B, or wrong. Can't be right for one firm and wrong for another.

Psystar's screwed. Thank god.

They not only violated Apple's EULA, but they also stole and sold code written by OSx86 developers.

Psystar is the Good guy. Apple's EULA is illegal. Anybody can write anything and call it an EULA. But, laws of the state take precedence.

Laws state you cannot bind two separately sold products together and require purchaser of one to buy the other. Simple. There's no way

out for Apple. If Apple won, then Microsoft would reopen its case also using Apple's to fight for IE in Windows once again. Can't have it both

ways. Either's it's right to bind A to B, or wrong. Can't be right for one firm and wrong for another.

...IE isn't bundled with Windows?

Psystar is the Good guy. Apple's EULA is illegal. Anybody can write anything and call it an EULA. But, laws of the state take precedence.

Laws state you cannot bind two separately sold products together and require purchaser of one to buy the other. Simple. There's no way

out for Apple. If Apple won, then Microsoft would reopen its case also using Apple's to fight for IE in Windows once again. Can't have it both

ways. Either's it's right to bind A to B, or wrong. Can't be right for one firm and wrong for another.

I dont think they are the same thing. Firstly, the ruling requiring MS to seperate Windows and IE was overturned and the remedy changed. While they were still found at fault, they are allowed to bundle the software still.

Secondly, MS was acting as a monopoly. They were forcing companies to use IE under threat of losing their OEM licensing; in addition they were rigging Windows to function less effeciently with other browsers (or at least they were allegedly doing that.) So, they meet the criteria of monopoly. They were excerising their position in the market using threats of force to crush competition.

Apple, however, is not a monopoly. They NEVER licensed ANYONE to use OSX on an OEM level. So PsyStar has no claim to this; ergo no monopoly defense. Additionally, they are not using a threat of force to crush competition ...

Anyone who thinks Apple has a monopoly simply becuase they dont want OSX running on a PC is dead wrong. They arent manipulating the market to crush Windows or other OS's, they arent influencing people to use their product, and everyone still has freedom of choice.

Not necessarily. Their line of Mac-clones are {censored}ed, but the company can move on.

Just a thought, but if Psystar files Ch11, this could have been a BRILLIANT PR scheme.

1-Psystar becomes first company to offer OSX Clone

2-Psystar gets sued by apple and is forced to file ch11

3-Psystar pays legal fees and moves on sans-OSX

The end result is that for a few $k in legal fees, a tiny PC builder in Florida gets the same kind of publicity reserved for SJ keynote speeches and is suddenly a player in a league it NEVER could have reached otherwise.

...wish I'd thought of that...

I dont think they are the same thing. Firstly, the ruling requiring MS to seperate Windows and IE was overturned and the remedy changed. While they were still found at fault, they are allowed to bundle the software still.

Of course, they can bundle the two. That's ok. Just not "require" the user to use IE on Windows. Apple can bundle OSX and MAC, just not "require" users to use OSX on a MAC. That's the essential point.

If I buy OSX and a MAC, I can use these two products however I see fit. I can put Windows on the MAC, or I can put OSX on a PC. Apple can't stop me from running Windows or Linux or FreeBSD or OpenSolaris, or any other OS on the MAC, and they can't stop me running OSX on any machine where I can get it to work.

It is illegal to tie the two together. But, it's ok to sell the two together. Just not require users to use them together.

Secondly, MS was acting as a monopoly. They were forcing companies to use IE under threat of losing their OEM licensing; in addition they were rigging Windows to function less effeciently with other browsers (or at least they were allegedly doing that.) So, they meet the criteria of monopoly. They were excerising their position in the market using threats of force to crush competition.

Apple is attempting to do exactly the same thing. They are trying to brow beat the user with the threat of their EULA, they are rigging OSX to work on MAC only, while the OSx86 project has clearly shown that OSX can easily work on many PCs quite well.

They are trying to maintain a monopoly on the hardware used to run OSX !

Apple, however, is not a monopoly. They NEVER licensed ANYONE to use OSX on an OEM level. So PsyStar has no claim to this; ergo no monopoly defense. Additionally, they are not using a threat of force to crush competition ...

They are trying to maintain a monopoly on the hardware used to run OSX !

The one good thing about Windows is Gates lets you use any hardware you want. You can configure your machine with any components that you can get to work with Windows, and Microsoft is ok with that. That gives the user total flexibility over his hardware choices.

Anyone who thinks Apple has a monopoly simply becuase they dont want OSX running on a PC is dead wrong. They arent manipulating the market to crush Windows or other OS's, they arent influencing people to use their product, and everyone still has freedom of choice.

Apple isn't trying to crush windows, they are trying to crush Psystar. They are trying to prevent any hardware co from producing a better, cheaper, or more useful pc box to run OSX.

They want a monopoly on the hardware that runs OSX.

Yes, everyone has freedom of choice. They can choose to run OSX on a PC. That's freedom. But, everyone doesn't have freedom of money. So, larger Apple can sue smaller Psystar and by shear wealth win the case because of Psystar's lack of financial resources to go into battle. Right or wrong, the little guy gets crushed. That's Apple's freedom, to crush all opponents. Everybody has freedom, but every body doesn't have money to fight to maintain that freedom.

They want a monopoly on the hardware that runs OSX.

I don't think you understand what a monopoly is.... What you are saying is like saying Sony has a monopoly because you can't play Gran Turismo on XBOX or that MS has a monopoly over Halo because you can't play it on PS3. A monopoly means one firm controls the means to entry where an equivalent product cannot be used or is available. In this case, you can put whatever OS you want on a Mac. You don't have to use OSX on an a Mac. Apple doesn't have a monopoly of the OS market. No one does. You can make up an OS yourself and sell it if you want. Nor is it a monopoly to bundle OSX with a Mac because you don't have to buy a Mac. You can buy several other computers with other OSes that are for all purposes legally equals to Mac OS. A company making a software to work with a specific computer is too specific to be a monopoly by definition.

Having a software only work with certain hardware isn't a monopoly. Go back to my game references and the definition of a monopoly. While I can't play a GT on 360 there is a equivalent product available. Forza 2 right? Sony isn't trying to stop the production of Forza or 360 are they through bars to entry (force) are they? Proprietary software exists all around you. It wasn't a monopoly when OSX was PPC only why would it be any different now? I can't sync my Motorola Q to my Mac is that a monopoly?

I don't think you understand what a monopoly is....

It's a monopoly, because they are trying to legally limit the user to their hardware.

Here's an example to think about. You buy any electrical appliance in North America, it has 60 cycles 120V, and a North American Power Plug. When you travel to Europe, you can't just plug it into the electrical power outlets over there. Its "designed" for the North American market. This is deliberate. However, you can buy a power plug adapter and 60-50 cycle 120V-230V transformer and plug in your NA appliance in the European power grid. That's perfectly legal.

What if the manufacturer of the electrical appliance decided to legally limit the use of its product to North American electricity? Suppose they included a EULA, that says, you can't use European electricity to operate this appliance, and you can't modify its power input by adapters and transformers to enable you to use it in Europe? Would you be ok with that?

This is exactly what Apple is trying to do, to limit the use of a product you've paid for, after you've paid them your cash already.

Once I pay for a product, and hand over my cash, the product is mine to use the best way I can that fits my own use and needs. The co. is out of the picture at that point.

I accept that I can't resell their product, etc.., or duplicate it and sell copies, and so on, but what's in my hands, legally purchased, is mind to do with as I please otherwise.

Now we're certain you don't understand what a monopoly is.

It's a monopoly, because they are trying to legally limit the user to their hardware.

 

Here's an example to think about. You buy any electrical appliance in North America, it has 60 cycles 120V, and a North American Power Plug. When you travel to Europe, you can't just plug it into the electrical power outlets over there. Its "designed" for the North American market. This is deliberate. However, you can buy a power plug adapter and 60-50 cycle 120V-230V transformer and plug in your NA appliance in the European power grid. That's perfectly legal.

 

What if the manufacturer of the electrical appliance decided to legally limit the use of its product to North American electricity? Suppose they included a EULA, that says, you can't use European electricity to operate this appliance, and you can't modify its power input by adapters and transformers to enable you to use it in Europe? Would you be ok with that?

 

This is exactly what Apple is trying to do, to limit the use of a product you've paid for, after you've paid them your cash already.

 

Once I pay for a product, and hand over my cash, the product is mine to use the best way I can that fits my own use and needs. The co. is out of the picture at that point.

 

I accept that I can't resell their product, etc.., or duplicate it and sell copies, and so on, but what's in my hands, legally purchased, is mind to do with as I please otherwise.

It's a monopoly, because they are trying to legally limit the user to their hardware.

 

Here's an example to think about. You buy any electrical appliance in North America, it has 60 cycles 120V, and a North American Power Plug. When you travel to Europe, you can't just plug it into the electrical power outlets over there. Its "designed" for the North American market. This is deliberate. However, you can buy a power plug adapter and 60-50 cycle 120V-230V transformer and plug in your NA appliance in the European power grid. That's perfectly legal.

 

What if the manufacturer of the electrical appliance decided to legally limit the use of its product to North American electricity? Suppose they included a EULA, that says, you can't use European electricity to operate this appliance, and you can't modify its power input by adapters and transformers to enable you to use it in Europe? Would you be ok with that?

 

This is exactly what Apple is trying to do, to limit the use of a product you've paid for, after you've paid them your cash already.

 

Once I pay for a product, and hand over my cash, the product is mine to use the best way I can that fits my own use and needs. The co. is out of the picture at that point.

 

I accept that I can't resell their product, etc.., or duplicate it and sell copies, and so on, but what's in my hands, legally purchased, is mind to do with as I please otherwise.

Your entire argument is flawed based on several factors:

1. Ownership. When you buy an appliance, you own it. Furthermore, say you rented one (which would be in essence like licensing it) and you break it, you have to pay for it in full, at which point you would (again) own it. You don't own OSX (as the EULA states.) You are licensing it. If your argument held true, people could copy the {censored} outta vista and xp, and product activation would be illegal.

2. Most of the companies that make products for use in NA also make another model for use in EU. Apple does not make a copy of OSX for use on a PC.

3. You can't accept one term of an EULA (IE copy/resell) and not the other terms. Its not a salad bar. You can't pick and choose what rules you want to go by. If people could, law would have no meaning, and nor would normal contracts.

This lawsuit is about alot more than simply violating the EULA. The violated copyright law and trademark law. That is the crux of the case. The EULA is just icing on the cake; and the courts descision (if and when it renders one) will have a huge impact on EULA's in general.

JustinTD - regarding monopolies - I think it's time to bring back those hamburger examples

JustinTD - regarding monopolies - I think it's time to bring back those hamburger examples

Such a good point, lets revisit them ... if Apple is a monopoly becuase they will only allow OSX on their computers, then ...

1. McDonalds is a monopoly since they wont allow Burger King to make a Big Mac ...

2. Burger King is a monopoly since they wont allow Mcdonalds to make a Whopper ...

3. Starbucks is a monopoly since they wont allow Dunkin Donuts to sell a Frappacino ...

4. Dunkin Donuts is a monopoly since they wont allow Starbucks to sell a Coolotta ...

Point is, Apple is not forcing you to buy OSX or a Mac for that matter. They are not manipulating the market to prevent consumers from buying OSX. You can go and buy it till your blue in the face. But if you want it to run WITHOUT 3rd party software, get a mac. I think we are beating a dead horse .. what has been established in this thread so far, lets go over it:

1. EULA's are tenuous at best. It's 50/50 whether a court will uphold them.

2. Since the EULA is called into question, it's questionable is in violation of contract law or enabling others to be since the contract itself is in question.

3. PsyStar did in fact use Mac trademarks to sell their products.

4. PsyStar broke copyright law by modifying OSX to run on PC (since it requires modifying files like DSMOS.kext which are encryption systems designed to prevent unathorized use of OSX.)

5. Most of the people who have made comments think Apple is a monopoly, even though they don't fit the legal or dictionary definitions of the word.

6. Most of the people want OSX on PC

Did I miss anything?

Sue Away!

Your entire argument is flawed based on several factors:

 

1. Ownership. When you buy an appliance, you own it. Furthermore, say you rented one (which would be in essence like licensing it) and you break it, you have to pay for it in full, at which point you would (again) own it. You don't own OSX (as the EULA states.) You are licensing it. If your argument held true, people could copy the {censored} outta vista and xp, and product activation would be illegal.

Well, lets see what this really means. When I buy an appliance, I can modify it, add features, and resell it, with the value added features I've put into it. When I buy OSX, if I modify it, I can't resell that changed version as a value added OSX. The right to sell the software is reserved by Apple. And Apple says it must be sold in its original state. That's licensing. I do not have the right to change OSX and resell it to someone else with those changes. But, nothing is stopping me from modifying OSX and "using" it myself. And nothing is stopping me from selling a "kit" that would enable a user to modify OSX himself to run on a PC. To a certain extent, the PC's enviroment is being changed by the "kit" to accomodate OSX. One can view the situation as either changing OSX to fit the PC, or changing the PC to let OSX run on it. For example, when I create a boot sector on a hard drive to enable Leopard to install, that's the PC that is being changed, not OSX etc..So I can legally sell an OPEN COMPUTER with many changes to the hardware that would enable OSX to install smoothly, without even violating the illegal EULA.

I don't OWN OSX, but I can OWN the "kit" that fixes the PC to enable OSX to run, and I can OWN the PC, so I only need the License for OSX anyway. And since I only need to follow the parts of the EULA that my state laws say are valid, I'm in complete compliance with the relevant laws, which require that two separate products A and B, like an OS and a PC, be usable separately without any hinderances employed to require the user to use them together. This battle has been fought in court and decided beteen Microsoft et al. So, everybody knows the law.

3. You can't accept one term of an EULA (IE copy/resell) and not the other terms. Its not a salad bar. You can't pick and choose what rules you want to go by. If people could, law would have no meaning, and nor would normal contracts.

True. The user can't pick and choose what to accept. However, that's not the point. It's not the user deciding what to accept, it's the state laws saying what parts of the EULA are valid, and what is not. The court has decided the issue already. We're just applying the law to this case. In other words, we're interpreting the law, as it currently stands, in light of the current situation.

This lawsuit is about alot more than simply violating the EULA. The violated copyright law and trademark law. That is the crux of the case. The EULA is just icing on the cake; and the courts descision (if and when it renders one) will have a huge impact on EULA's in general.

Well, Psystar may have violated other things. I don't know what they did. But they didn't need to violate anything at all. Just make it clear. (1) Sell Leopard, only if Apple allows them to, and unchanged from the original Apple CD. (2) Sell a "kit" that would enable the user to fix the PC to install Leopard. (3) Sell the technical service of installing OSX for the user after the user has bought the separate components. Make all these three separate items on the invoice so Apple can't claim they are modifying Leopard and selling the modified OS to the user. Make it clear that the PC is being modified to enable Leopard to run instead.

Done.

Did I miss anything?

Yeah, Victorias Secret is a monopoly since they won't let Sears sell Wonder Bras

A monopoly means one firm controls the means to entry where an equivalent product cannot be used or is available.

But haven't Apple hanged themself's in this respect? Apple themself's say in their ads that Mac OS X is unlike anything else. It is based on a different structure (UNIX). They can not have it both ways and I personally do not see the day where Apple says that Mac OS X is like Windows. Many programs are Mac based too like Final Cut Pro. I see that there is no equivilant that is as good as or better than Final Cut Pro for the PC.

But haven't Apple hanged themself's in this respect? Apple themself's say in their ads that Mac OS X is unlike anything else. It is based on a different structure (UNIX). They can not have it both ways and I personally do not see the day where Apple says that Mac OS X is like Windows. Many programs are Mac based too like Final Cut Pro. I see that there is no equivilant that is as good as or better than Final Cut Pro for the PC.

Rebuttle ...

Your argument that OSX being different makes it a monopoly is biased ... if this were the case, you wouldn't have the whopper or big mac ... they are different flavors of the same food more or less, OSX is a different flavor of operating system.

The statement about Mac software v Windows Software is moot. I can't list the number of programs which don't run without bootcamp or emulation on a mac .. but here's a few to give you some examples:

1. TeamSpeak

2. MS Frontpage

3. mIRC

Those are off the top of my head. Granted FC Pro and those are different, but some would beg to differ on FP ... there are other solutions available on PC for FC Pro, granted they may not be as good, but personally I don't think any IRC client is as good as mIRC so ... that my friend is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, Psystar may have violated other things. I don't know what they did. But they didn't need to violate anything at all. Just make it clear. (1) Sell Leopard, only if Apple allows them to, and unchanged from the original Apple CD. (2) Sell a "kit" that would enable the user to fix the PC to install Leopard. (3) Sell the technical service of installing OSX for the user after the user has bought the separate components. Make all these three separate items on the invoice so Apple can't claim they are modifying Leopard and selling the modified OS to the user. Make it clear that the PC is being modified to enable Leopard to run instead.

 

Done.

The KIT itself breaks copyright law as it contains modified apple code DSMOS.kext. Without that Kext then all would be fine, as you are talking maybe a few modified plain text files. But you need that Kext that technically violates the DMCA. There is no way around it. You cannot sell a modified leopard to run on a PC OR a kit to modify leopard to run on a PC OR leopard pre-installed on a PC (or do the same with any other version of OS X UNTIL Apple changes the EULA, which they are very unlikely to do).

Enough bickering already. I wanna see gavels flying, people squirming, and heads rolling regardless who they may belong to

On the subject of hamburgers. I think the Big Mac verses Whopper argument is being misconstrued here. The real way to look at it is this.

You know long ago Macdonalds did expensive research to find out where the good places to put restaurants were, where the people traffic

justified certain locations. Then they opened Macdonalds at these specific locations. Burger King then came along, did no research of their

own, but simply opened a Burger King next to Macdonalds, or just across the road from them. They figured, hey, Mac knows where the spots

are, we'll just piggy back on their knowhow. And that's why Burger Kings are found today near the sport wherever Macdonalds are located.

They pirated Macdonalds expensive research.

Back to the burgers. The OS verses PC is just as if Macdonals put up a sign that says you can't take a Big Mac over to Burger King and eat

it there, you must eat the Big Mac in Macdonalds. The problem with this is, say you have some friends that like Whoppers, but you want a

Big Mac. How can you sit together and eat a meal, if both Macdonalds and Burger King had a EULA that required purchasers of their burger to

eat the thing in their restaurant?

You might think, you'll just get one of your friends to sneek out a Whopper paper wrapper so that you can wrap the Big Mac in the Whopper

paper and transform it to look like a Whopper, so that you can then walk into Burger King and sit down with your friends without being stopped

by the security guard standing at the door enforcing the EULA.

But, that would be illegal, because if Macdonalds found out you'd modified their Big Mac with Burger King advertising Whopper wrapper, they'd

get mad and sue for violation of their EULA.

This is exactly the same situation here. I, for one, like to have many OSs on the same machine. I can swap files between hard disk partitions

easily. I can develop software for multiple Operating systems with the same one machine etc...lots of good things with multi-os systems. This

is just like having many friends eating at the same food court, taking food from different restaurants to the same table to eat together etc..

They pirated Macdonalds expensive research.

Oh noes.... it's watergate all over again

if Macdonalds found out you'd modified their Big Mac with Burger King advertising Whopper wrapper, they'd

get mad and sue for violation of their EULA.

Mickey D's has a EULA on their hamburger? Is that why they get mad when I buy two 99 cent burgers and stack them on top of one another - and call it a "poor mans big mac"?

On the subject of hamburgers. I think the Big Mac verses Whopper argument is being misconstrued here. The real way to look at it is this.

You know long ago Macdonalds did expensive research to find out where the good places to put restaurants were, where the people traffic

justified certain locations. Then they opened Macdonalds at these specific locations. Burger King then came along, did no research of their

own, but simply opened a Burger King next to Macdonalds, or just across the road from them. They figured, hey, Mac knows where the spots

are, we'll just piggy back on their knowhow. And that's why Burger Kings are found today near the sport wherever Macdonalds are located.

 

They pirated Macdonalds expensive research.

 

Back to the burgers. The OS verses PC is just as if Macdonals put up a sign that says you can't take a Big Mac over to Burger King and eat

it there, you must eat the Big Mac in Macdonalds. The problem with this is, say you have some friends that like Whoppers, but you want a

Big Mac. How can you sit together and eat a meal, if both Macdonalds and Burger King had a EULA that required purchasers of their burger to

eat the thing in their restaurant?

 

You might think, you'll just get one of your friends to sneek out a Whopper paper wrapper so that you can wrap the Big Mac in the Whopper

paper and transform it to look like a Whopper, so that you can then walk into Burger King and sit down with your friends without being stopped

by the security guard standing at the door enforcing the EULA.

 

But, that would be illegal, because if Macdonalds found out you'd modified their Big Mac with Burger King advertising Whopper wrapper, they'd

get mad and sue for violation of their EULA.

 

This is exactly the same situation here. I, for one, like to have many OSs on the same machine. I can swap files between hard disk partitions

easily. I can develop software for multiple Operating systems with the same one machine etc...lots of good things with multi-os systems. This

is just like having many friends eating at the same food court, taking food from different restaurants to the same table to eat together etc..

While I don't know if the research things is true, it sure could be LOL... seems like it to me. But, when you buy a Whopper, I know MD don't like it if you came in there with it ... and besides, you are BUYING the burger, not a license to eat one

I read on another site that if you change a product by 10% or more that it no longer falls under the original copyright contract. This is why some companies get away with selling modified Porsche's.

Anyone know if it's true or not? Because, if it is, then if the osx86 community changes OSX enough, it becomes what CentOS is to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5

Just my $0.02