Psystar hires Jammie's lawyers in fight with Apple
Mac clone maker Psystar has hired a new legal firm--the same one defending Jammie Thomas-Rasset--for its courtroom battle against Apple's copyright infringement suit.
Psystar used its hiring of Houston-based Camara & Sibley, which is also defending convicted music-pirate Thomas-Rasset, to comment on the suit.
"Psystar has always been more a Cowboy than a Hippie. Now we've changed lawyers to better reflect who we are," the company said Tuesday in a post on its Web site. "Everyone here values openness. And that's how we're going to fight Apple: in public."
The company was previously using Carr & Ferrell of Palo Alto, Calif., though it's not clear whether the "Hippie" reference is to that law firm.
The posting goes on to explain Psystar's position in the lawsuit. Claiming that it is "probably one of Apple's biggest customers," Psystar said it buys legal copies of Mac OS X from retailers, just like anyone else. The only difference is that it also installs extensions, allowing Mac OS X to run on its computers.
"Apple's copyright on OS X doesn't give Apple the right to tell people what they can do with it after they buy a copy," Psystar said in the post. "Apple can't tell an applications developer that it can't make a piece of Mac-compatible software. And they can't tell us not to write kernel extensions that turn the computers we buy into Mac-compatible hardware."
Unfortunately for Psystar, that is exactly what Apple believes.
Apple contends that the Mac OS X End User License Agreement (PDF), which each user must agree to before installing the software, is all the proof it needs. The agreement clearly states that the operating system can only be installed on an Apple-labeled computer. That could leave any clone maker without a legal leg to stand on.
Psystar filed for bankruptcy in May, which normally could shield a company from its legal woes. But Apple asked the court to lift the automatic stay of proceedings in the copyright case.
Apple won its argument, and a new trial date has been set for January 11, 2010.
Jim Dalrymple has followed Apple and the Mac industry for the last 15 years, first as part of MacCentral and then in various positions at Macworld. Jim also writes about the professional audio market, examining the best ways to record music using a Macintosh. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. He currently runs The Loop. You can follow him on Twitter @jdalrymple. 
If they did not modify the kernel extensions or replace them or simply not install and include a boxed copy of OS X, then I don't think they would be violating either contract or copyrights.
However being a re-seller they must be subject to high standards than a user that simply modifies the OS or some other product for his or her own use.
Now imagine doing this to the product, then reselling and leaving the manufacturer to support a modified version of the product and possibly taking the hit for a poor product (that isn't really poor).
Why can't Psystar instead develop its own OS, why do they need to take someone else's product and use it in a manner not agreed to and then reselling that product, to either unsuspecting users or users who know, but can't tell the difference.
I have no problem with Psystar if they have an agreement with Apple or if they develop their own software, but it seems to me they are simply stealing another person's hard work and finding a way to make money for themselves.
If Psystar can use Apple's or anyone else's product in a manner 'not intended', by the seller, shouldn't the same logic from the defense sector also apply here. Couldn't Apple argue in this instance that the doctrine that supports the US government's sale of weapons to say India, which has intended use restrictions also apply to its products. Do you think there is merit in that idea?
http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/virtualworlds/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209100284&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_Management
Its just one case, but it appears that EULA's may have the force of law.
I recall that real estate transactions also can come with covenants, years and years ago people would write things like.'you many not use horseless carriages' or in some cases that you may own the property but not the mineral rights and things like that. So there is precedent for doing this in trade.
I think its the same thing with art work, you can buy a painting but you cannot produce prints and then resell them (this may be a good analogy to psystar possibly), in fact I don't think you can produce a print at all.
Go into the western prairie states and provences in USA and Canada and ask them what cowboy means, after all it's their term.
Do you really think I don't know what a cowboy is, or that CNet is American? Come back when you've mastered the art of a sense of humour.
I got the joke, it was subtle, snarky, and got a chuckle out of me
Well I should have said Psystar is an American company. The world has moved on while the Brits seek the attention as if its 18th century.
You might have your immediate past President to thank for that.
Didn't Dell offer to manufacture Apple Computers after they switched to Intel processors & made Mac OSX Universal with Intel & PowerPC chips?
Is this just a pi$$ing competition between Mike & Steve Jobs?
Pystar violated the Apple terms of User Agreement. Apple's jack booted brown shirts will eat the cowboy lawyers for breakfast & drop them like bull pies for desert.
Don't mess with The Steve.
Apple has proven over and over that they suck. Sure, they make a few decent products, but their policies suck, and the company as a hole sucks.
If they want me to ditch windows and move to the apple o/s they will have to remove the restriction on what hardware I can run it on, otherwise forget it.
Secondly, don't buy Apple products, if it has nothing decent you can use.
Thirdly, if you build a piece of hardware to sell and you build the software that runs the hardware too, are YOU going to let other people take your software and install it on their hardware that compete against your hardware?
Unlike Microsoft, Apple is a hardware maker. Apple makes its own computers and its own operating system to run on its own computers. Why should Apple then let someone else take that software to run on other hardware that competes against Apple's product?
Does Garmin give TomTom its GPS software to use? Do TomTom give its GPS software to Google to use on the Android? DOse ORacle give Microsoft Oracle Database SOftware to run on Microsoft Windows?
Please think clearly first and understand the issue.
Actually, they can and do. Look at the contract for a rental car. It will inevitably have an entire list of things you can and can't do with the car, including such things as crossing state or international borders. And that is a much closer analogy to this situation. You do not buy software. You buy a license to use software. In effect, you rent it under the terms that the owner of the software sets. And this isn't limited to Apple. Virtually every software company on the planet licenses their software, rather than selling it. Even "open source" software is licensed, not sold or given. To "buy" Apple's software and truly have the right to do with it what you please, you would have to come up with several billion dollars and buy the intellectual property from Apple. At that point, you could put it on any machine that you wanted.
Go ahead and add the after-market parts and then go back to the dealership for a warranty fix. They won't touch the car with a ten-foot pole until you agree to pay for the service or repair thereof.
I think the EULA states that you agree not to install on any non-Apple hardware. This is where the issue is this a contract law issue or a copyright issue arises from.
Psystar is selling the computers with an upgrade installation as a complete installation. That is illegal. Any company trying that with Windows would get pwned by MS...
Oh, and I believe that the person above (Burger_time) who mentioned that this is about contract law, not copyright, is somewhat correct, although it is not hard to see that the line might arguably become blurred at some point, owing to the fact that both issues are touched somewhat.
The operating system, as stated, is meant for running on Apple hardware only, not on any other hardware. Psystar deliberately and knowingly violated that restrictions.
You may want to put Mac OS/X anywhere and everywhere, just like you may want to use Garmin GPS software on your TomTom or vice versa or run Orion Telescope software on Meader telescope or take H-P UX and run it on IBM's machines or IBM's AIX and run them on H-P machines.
I very much doubt Garmin, TomTom, Orion, Meade, H-P and IBM will let you do that. So too will Apple not want that to happen.
Apple knows Hackintoshes exist and have never prosecuted an individual for building one (they did issue a take down notice to a website with a video demonstrating how to do it, but that's different for obvious reasons). Does any rational person really think that means that anyone should be able to sell them openly for profit and compete against Apple using their own software though?
- by jlees July 30, 2009 6:58 PM PDT
- well you can always do the right thing if your macbook1,1 , is like mine. It was suggested that I just wipe the hard drive and install windows. Looks more and more like thats what I'll have to do to get It working right.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by shycelticwitch July 31, 2009 10:39 AM PDT
- Why ruin a perfectly good laptop with an unstable operating system. Yes, Windows actually runs better on Macs (must be that proprietary control over the "production" of their hardware), but OS X is 2-4 years ahead of Windows in user friendly interface. Putting Windows on a Mac is like putting an Escort engine in a Ferrari...
- Like this
-
(45 Comments)