Psystar shifts course, says Apple abusing copyright
Psystar is now trying to argue Apple is abusing its copyrights in prohibiting the use of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
(Credit: Psystar)Having run into a roadblock in its attempt to fire back at Apple, Psystar is changing tactics.
Court filings this week (click here for PDF) indicate that Psystar is dropping its argument that Apple is violating antitrust laws--which Judge William Alsup has already rejected--in favor of a new argument that Apple is abusing its copyright on Mac OS X to stifle competition. The Mac clone maker is attempting to stay in business against long legal odds by trying to convince a court that Apple's licensing policies for Mac OS X are unfair and illegal.
From the filing:
Psystar alleges that by virtue of Apple's leveraging of copyrights in the context of Apple's EULA, spurious litigation via the DMCA, and various other anti- and unfair competitive conduct, there is no viable alternative to the purchase and use of Apple-Labeled Computer Hardware Systems for users who wish to use the Mac OS, for a prospective buyer of the Mac OS, or for a user of an older version of the Mac OS.
Psystar further argues that Apple includes code in Mac OS X that causes "kernel panic" if that operating system is installed on anything other than an Apple computer. The company knows this, of course, because it has to bypass those checks in order to get Mac OS running on the Open Computer.
The idea behind the new complaint is that other parties have successfully argued that copyright abuse can have the same effect as antitrust behavior even if the strict tests needed to assert antitrust conditions are not met. But as with Psystar's other legal claims, it could be a long shot.
Apple and Psystar will argue the merits of the new complaint on January 15 in San Francisco before Judge Alsup.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
you are not making any sense. those sold copies of os x are for software upgrades. anyone who doesn't want to use the program with quality hardware, shouldn't buy it. its like running an inferno on p3 900mhz... what pystar is doing is nothing more than stealing apple's name and selling it themselves. apple should even sue MS for xeroxing every single feature of os x in vista, and publicly claiming ownership.
fanboyism isn't needed. You CAN buy OSX separate and functional from Macs hardware. Whether or not you think that hardware is high quality is your opinion. Regardless of how you feel Psystar has clearly ruffled a few feathers, and its clear Apple knows that their hardware only sells due to their software, and that is where their margins are. There are so many things Apple does backhandedly but gets away with due to Mobs blindness. Religious fanaticism towards a tech company is never good.
Btw murbo, you just stole Xerox's name. You meant to say "photo copying" but instead you used a trademarked term. Guess you don't own your own post.
Your argument would be that people with older versions of OSX should never be able to go to a retail store and by a newer version, thus not allowing them new features and advancements....that makes a lot of sense.
No company should be forced to allow other people to use its products in a way that promote another companie's products, which is what Psystar is doing. They are using OSX to promote their computers. I don't care if its a retail bought copy.....its not right to demand a company all of a sudden have to provide their product to run on other people's hardware and support it....Apple chooses not to, and if the consumer doesn't like it they can shop elsewhere for another product....thats there business decision and thats not illegal.
Does Apple, or Best Buy or wherever the OS X copies are sol checks if the buyer owns a Mac?
It is an OS running on x86 computers.
If anybody who doesn't want to run it on Apple hardware "shouldn't" buy it is rather irrelevant. I can buy Microsoft Vista and install it on an old, underpowered machine. I "shouldn't", but I can.
The issue here is more if Apple can force me to install the software on an Apple machine only. They could refuse to sell it to me if I don't have proof of ownership of an Apple machine, or they could only sell it in combination with an Apple machine, but they don't.
For instance, say you had Windows 98 and wanted to upgrade to XP. No problem: save a few bucks by purchasing the upgrade edition, but you must be a registered owner of Windows 98 to qualify. Many software publishers provide similar upgrade editions of their products. In any case, much (if not all) of this "upgrade" software has a EULA stating that one must be a registered owner of the earlier product as well as some type of built-in safeguard (e.g. you must insert your Windows 98 CD to verify ownership before you can install XP). Any retail version of OS X you purchase is exactly the same thing: an upgrade for registered owners of the OS, which one can only become by buying an Apple machine. If you're saying that Apple shouldn't be allowed to stop Psystar from circumventing their EULA and software safeguards, then does that mean I should likewise be able to purchase the upgrade edition of Adobe CS4 without having to own an earlier version of the product?
I think the problem here is that people can't help but think of OS X in terms of Windows or other PC operating systems designed to be installed on hardware from any vendor. With the exception of the clone years in the mid-1990's, Apple has treated their OS like an embedded system--something that's designed to work on specific pieces of hardware. I can't install BlackBerry software on my Motorola cell phone or the PS3 operating system on my Xbox 360. Why don't we take RIM and Sony to court, then?
If you're not satisfied with Apple's approach to the computing experience, then don't buy a Mac.
Can you buy OS 10.5? No. You can buy an upgrade, not a full version. Apple's licensing attached the license to the hardware it was origionally purchased with. MS doesn't limit you that way. If I own a license for XP, I can put it on any piece of hardware, just only one at a time. I build a new box, I can put it on that new box, I just have to take it of the old one.
Psystar doesn't have a leg to stand on, it's silly that it's taken this long to shut them down, and they're not really shut down yet. (note... I'm a mac hater... and I'm really trying hard to fine a reason they're the devil here, but the law is on their side)
"The idea behind the new complaint is that other parties have successfully argued that copyright abuse can have the same effect as antitrust behavior even if the strict tests needed to assert antitrust conditions are not met. "
This is an argument I had not considered previously. I don't think they have much of a chance with it, but it sounds much like what we heard about Microsoft and IE bundled with Windows. I'd be curious to see how this case gets argued to that viewpoint and if they can convince the court to look at it in that manner.
Does Psystar have a chance? No, not really. They won't be around after the court hands down their decision. They are just staying alive as long as they can. I'm pretty sure their money is all going off shore and out of the reach Apple's lawyers.
The only real thing I want to see is the EULA fully exposed and examined in court. Those things have been a nuisance and crutch the OEM's have been using to bully end users for decades now. It's time they were addressed in a legal setting and finally determine what is and is not allowed to be claimed by those same EULA;'s.
This time if they bought Psystar, there isn't anything from someone else doing the same thing and they are back in the same position.
I don't see anyone can think that what Pystar is doing is okay.
As to copyrights and all of the other legal things related to this case that you may not like. Talking about it here will not change anything, contact your Representatives and Senators, tell them you would like the laws changed.
Sure, a user can buy a copy of OSX at a store, and in reality do whatever they want with the software. Apple will not send ninjas, an army of Wall-Es, or giant iPods to arrest you or whatever. However, Psystar is being dumb. You see, vendors like Dell, HP, and even Apple when they were making Windows PCI cards for their pre-G3 Macs all had OEMs of Windows 3.x, 95 and 98 (and more recent in the case of Dell, HP, etc.), allowing them to give away the OS with the hardware. They paid M$ for each copy, dirt cheap. They also installed little bells and whistles (or programs that suck) into their own versions of Windows.
Is Psystar an OEM of Apple? No. And now they're suffering from sour grapes.
That being said, I am wondering about one point that seems to be overlooked. Pystar is making substantive changes to the Mac OS X code in order to make it work on their product. Wouldn't that be problematic for them enough in court? Can they do that and claim that is not an even more profound violation of the EULA? Should someone be able to buy a product, modify it, and claim it is the equivalent to the unmodified original in order to profit from someone else's work? While my background is certainly not in the legal field, I would very much like to hear from someone familiar with the law on this.
Really MS paying people to support psystar?
How does the MAC OS being sold on other computers benefit MS in anyway?
I support Psystar b/c I have a deep hatred of Apple and a love of Mac OS
And to one of the replies above, wrong -- go open a dictionary: Xerox is a company name, but xerox is also a word in the dictionary in the public domain. You can't use the word Xerox to denote your company, but any photocopier can claim to make xerox copies. This is the difference between trademarks and copyrights?if you allow public use of your trademark and don't defend it, that word can become part of the public domain. Trademarks can also expire, which is why any company can now make "aspirin," formerly a trademark of the Bayer corporation.
No excuse to be running a PPC Mac theses day's (except maybe the few that have the quad G5's). Why should my Intel Mac be held back from preforming as fast as possible because you want Apple to support your dinosaurs.
What matter in this case is does Apple have the right to enforce a legally purchase copyrighted good from being resold in other transformative form. This issue has been argued before, and according to most courts, and to most jurors, it is within the owner's right to sell a derivative of a copyrighted work provided if in a commercial setting, the right to use per license is granted, and in an academic setting, provided proper attribution is declared.
The first sale doctrine and fair use law apply here. First sale is a quasi rule setup to grant the users the right to use and sell a legally owned copy. Fair use permits a user to use the name of the company to reference it and fair use also permits a derivative of copyrighted work to be included.
Psystar purchased the software which gave it the license. Fair use permits Psystar to include Apple copyrighted work and its modification to sell an integrated product.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081204231414746
what should we expect next? That Hyundai motors will start Ripping off the Mercedes Benz emblem because it looks nice on their cheap korean imports?
Apple just betrayed you right there, they forced you to buy Mac hardware.
Psystar is trying to save you from Apple's wrath
- by dennis_the_bug December 13, 2008 1:16 PM PST
- Bottom line, Apple Inc. growth is not ORGANIC anymore. They abuse the market and they abuse their employees And People hate such companies. Same people trashed Microsoft when they were not ORGANIC and not its Apple's turn.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(48 Comments)