Judge rules for Apple in Psystar case
A judge has ruled in Apple's favor in its copyright-infringement case against Psystar, which has been selling Mac clones running Mac OS X.
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup on Friday granted Apple's request for a summary judgment, while denying Psystar's counterclaim.
"In sum, Psystar has violated Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works," Alsup wrote in the ruling (PDF), which was posted by legal site Groklaw.net.
Apple filed its suit in July 2008, a few months after Psystar began selling Mac clones. The case revolved around Psystar's contention that it could run Apple's Mac OS X operating system on non-Apple machines. Apple denied this, stating that its Mac OS X end user license agreement allows people to install the OS on Apple computers only.
Both Apple and Psystar had a requested a summary judgment, which is a determination made without trial based on the merits of a case.
Neither Apple nor Psystar could immediately be reached for comment.
One of Psystar's contentions was fair use. The judge rejected this, stating the company "does not even attempt to address the four factors used to determine fair use." Another of Psystar's claims was "first sale" doctrine, which allows someone who buys copyrighted material to sell it. But Alsup said this doctrine applies only to legal copies, not to the "unauthorized copies" that Psystar produced.
The judge also ruled in favor of Apple's claim that Psystar violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. "Psystar has violated the DMCA by circumventing Apple's protection barrier and trafficking devices designed for circumvention," Alsup said.
In addition, the judge rejected Psystar's claims that Apple had misused its copyright and that Apple's licensing agreement was unduly restrictive.
Alsup's ruling did not include a permanent injunction against Miami-based Psystar because, he said, Apple has not requested one yet.
There are other claims Apple has made that could still go to trial, including breach of contract, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution. A hearing to determine remedies is set for December 14. The trial has been scheduled to begin in January.
Updated at 4:15 p.m. PST with more details from the ruling.
Natalie Weinstein is an associate editor who works out of Austin, Texas. She spent a decade as a reporter and editor in the newspaper industry before joining the CNET News staff in 2000. E-mail Natalie. 
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but Mac clones only hurt the entire industry and Mac user base.
If they purchase it, which they didn't, the software is licensed.
==
"People should be able to run software they purchase on any equipment they own."
People still can, and happily do so, even with OSX. However, you cannot build a company on selling cheap clone computers, because, as the article clearly states, it interferes with Apple's reproduction (hardware) and distribution (software) rights.
Please learn the differences.
I doubt that they do. This was a commercial thing, not a hobbyist thing. Otherwise, they would have never open-sourced Darwin...
Considering the only reason most people "need" Windows is for gaming....
Test after test.... Apple's OS proves to be better at mulitasking, networking, flexibility... you know, the important things computer savvy users appreciate.
Maybe you should try reading the EULAs that come with Microsoft and much of the software than runs using it before you condemn Apple.
Psystar tried to bring consumers something they wanted, they innovated, apple squashed it. It's no different than any other attempt at monopolization.
i had to break in! every computers have multitasking. But I don't think Apple OS is better in networking and flexibility. Computer savvy users pick linux distributions (ubuntu, opensuse, redhat, etc...) or MS because they don't be locked down by Apple. Apple software store? forget it!!
I haven't seen any IT admins carry iMacs around. Even lower IT levels, they carry Windows OS to do troubleshooting on the fields.
iMac is good for basic tasks. But when it comes to advanced tasks, Win is always on top.
Yelonde you are probably using a mac with windows installed on it... so please donīt be hyppocritical talking about compatibility if you run a mac.... the only way in which you can make an apple computer compatible with LOTS of stuff is if you install windows.
You should also consider that linux is a really stable system, it may lack the drivers for lots of products and the software library available is not as big as in windows..... but at least the linux developers are true to their OS and do not need to install windows on it in order to allow their users run other programs.... ohh and by the way, linux and windows users do not pay the apple tax. They can get a core i7 with a 25 inch screen a 1 GB video for less than $1500 ;)
Saying the linux software library is not as big as windows is like comparing a gnat to the empire state building. If you guys are not spending half your time re-compiling your kernals, they you are busy looking for drivers. Please, until the linux platform even comes close to ease of use, please stop comparing them. And even though you don't need to install windows, many still install Wine or some other emulator so, yes, Linux still needs WIndows of some type.
I've had more trouble with 64-bit drivers and privilege escalation confusion under Windows 7 than Ubuntu. (Have you tried disabling UAC prompts for a program that doesn't have an installer and isn't digitally signed? I have. I had to read two different walthroughs to figure it out. And that's without getting into the fact that, out of the box, UAC is completely freaking useless as you're STILL running everything as an admin anyway; you have to change your privileges in Control Panel before it grants any measure of security. Which the average user will never do. And then when you want to extract a zip file to c:\Program Files, get ready for three consecutive password prompts.)
And if you want to talk about ease-of-use, let's talk about how you install software. What, you still have to hunt for installers on the Web? And they don't even resolve dependencies?
That is SO 1995.
Oh well all you tree-hugging- hippies using Psystar systems - all ten of you - looks like you'll have to get a Job after all to own a Mac.
There is some real interesting info there.
They also tripped over their own logic. To make a computer you clone the drive. It saves time. The case PsyStar presented showed where the Sheriffs office was OK cloning drives and they only ran into a problem when they cloned more drives than they has lisences. Later they say that PsyStar wasnt' able to clone drives without infringing yet when us users change a drive we have to do that to get back up and running. They used the unauthorzed manufacturing method (same methods Apples Chinese cohorts use no doubt) to invalidate the first sale doctricn when in fact the first sale would have covered the OS X being sold, not the cloned version.
Mostly, I find that PsyStar didn't have a good legal team as there were issues with the case and facts that cost them the case that had nothing to do wiht the issues. The judge did us all a disservice by letting process and procedures get in the way of the legal principals.
Another interesting bit. Replacing OS X files with PsyStar files without modifying or hacking the OS X files (meaning they did no deratiave work) was considered deravative work just the same.
Still it all comes back to the judge spanking PsyStar for having a crappy legal team instead of looking at the real issues.
"Apple also alleges that every time Psystar turned on Psystar computers running Mac OS X then another copy was made in random access memory."
Because if they count a copy made into RAM as a copy, then it doesn't fall under the "single backup copy" that the license allows.
Funny, you yourself have claimed to have done exactly that, by your definition.
(now, if you had an Apple sticker on the side, you would have fulfilled the terms of the EULA.)
Depends.
Privately, violating a EULA is not against any law so long as you legally obtain the material, and do not distribute the result (that is, buy the disk retail and don't sell the Hackintosh). If anyone, (e.g. you or Dan) can find a law stating otherwise, I'd love to see it. A EULA only establishes the responsibilities of the seller and buyer with regards to one another. Violating a EULA breaches that contract, but does not rescind any rights you have to property which you obtained legally (cf. Fair Use rights). The only thing Apple can really do in this regard is to no longer be obligated to provide you with tech support, warranty fulfillment, or similar.
Now commercially, things are different. As a company, you are no longer the end user, and would be violating Apple's right to distribution and etc. as noted by the judge in the article in his summary judgment. As a commercial entity, you would not have the right to Fair Use, First Sale Doctrine, or any similar rights that individuals have.
Because they built the widget and the widget is what sells.
This is not a battle against the hackintosh community it is a battle against some thieves who took Apple's IP and the Hackintosh communities IP and then SOLD that work on. Microsoft would REALLY love it if this succeeded because anyone could buy a LOW end copy of Windows - say the 29 buck student edition and then a company - say Psystar - could "modify" it and sell it for 34 bucks. Way to go. Do you think even Ballmer would be happy with that?
...and I sincerely doubt that Microsoft would ever want to face such a prospect on the consumer level, let alone in servers (where such a switch would be far, far easier to do).
Read up on what a monopoly is any why they are limited as a check and balance on the capitalist system. Your question will be answered.
Last time I checked, MS was the convicted monopolist, and Apple had less than 10% of the computer market. Apple is a monopolist how exactly?
what a despicable comment about someones' illness......
Yes. This isn't a difficult question. If Microsoft wanted to get into the hardware business then they could and restrict the software that they write to only run on their hardware.
I think mentioning someone's personal health (particularly in such an offensive way) when commenting on a story related to tech news and a legal decision is beyond the pale at best and just plain mean spirited at worst.
They arleady do require special things to run Windows. You need to activate. Online, or via phone. If MS pulls support at any time the OS becomes crippled and you would have to hack it to make it work right.
Imagine HP being sued for installing Windows 7 on their Desktops. The company owould tank, Microsoft would buy them out for cheap. And this would all be legal. Remember, this case sets the precedent.
Trust me, that would never fly...
Trust me Microsoft don't have the business model to do this. BTW how is your Zune OS doing running on a Zen? How is your Xbox 360 software doing running on the PS3. You see Microsoft has areas where it does indeed do this. But they would NOT lock down their OS too many business partners to upset - oh wait - generally being a business partner of Microsoft is an open invitation to be shafted - how is that "Plays for Sure" device running now?
...wanna know what happens if you modify the OS on an XBox, or modify the XBox itself, then try to sell those mods? Also, Microsoft would quickly prevent you from modifying Windows 7's source code and selling the results for any reason.
You are of course free to prove me wrong, if you're capable.
So before you make any pronouncements, you may want to do a bit of research, eh? ;)
Unfortunately that includes me, my new home built PC won't run Mac OS using a bought & paid for $29 legal copy of Snow Leopard (using PsyStar's RebelEFI software).
I would love to have the choice, I know that I would be a 2nd-class Apple citizen (my choice) - BUT the vendors are also free to determine their own EULA - and the software WAS refundable after opening.
It's up to the courts to decide - oh - and they have.
My choice still, it just doesn't include running Mac clone.
Kindly stop acting the fool, and stop descending into ad hominem - you only make yourself look like an idiot when you do that. Your argument has been countered repeatedly and demolished repeatedly.
That Zune OS and Xbox OS situation is completely different. Those are firmwares; they are not marketed as an operating system. A firmware is designed to remain firm to specific hardware. If Apple changed the name of Mac OS to Mac Firmware, then that would be different. But no, it's Mac OS, and it claims to run on a computer, so it should be sold as what it is: Mac Firmware.
Apple is claiming in this case that it is illegal for anyone who purchases Mac OS to install it on anything other than Apple branded hardware. The fact that they are currently only targeting Psystar is irrelevant, the legal precedent is that it is illegal to install the OS on a non Apple branded hardware, even if you purchase the software and install it at home.
Should a software company really have the right to dictate the hardware that it runs on legally? Technically, this ruling would give the right to Microsoft to make it ILLEGAL to install Windows on a PC that had an AMD processor, or an Nvidia graphics card, or even a Logitech mouse if they chose to.
(Ignoring the obvious antitrust issues, the exact same precedent applies if Microsoft chooses to license Windows to only run on a machine with an Intel processor, or a Microsoft mouse)
The point is, the only thing that is stopping Microsoft from legally being able to dictate all PC hardware is the fact that they are a monopoly. If and when there is a legitimate contender in the OS space, then antitrust wouldn't apply anymore, and both companies would have far too much power to control PC hardware.
The bottom line is that no software company should be able to dictate the hardware that we run the software on. They don't have to make it easy, or even cheap, but once we buy the license we should be able to use it any way we choose for personal use.
BS.
It was a foregone conclusion. The judge HAD to rule that way or he'd be overturning almost all of our copyright law. Think of the consequences if he had ruled in Psystar's favor:
1. Software vendors would no longer be able to sell an OEM version. After the software left their hands, it could be used on new equipment or by a DIYer.
2. Software vendors would no longer be able to sell an upgrade version at reduced price. There would be only one price for software - whether it were used on new equipment, existing equipment, upgrade, whatever.
3. Software vendors would no longer be able to give a discount for quantity purchases. IBM probably buys Windows for a license fee of $10 or 20 per unit - but they would be free to sell it on the open market for whatever price they wished.
4. There would be no way to prevent reverse engineering of software. I could buy a copy of Windows (probably one of those $10 IBM site licenses), modify the launch screen with my own name and sell it as my own product.
5. Home DVDs are for personal use only. You can not legally use it for commercial purposes or public displays. That restriction would no longer be binding.
6. Book copyrights would disappear. Once you buy a book, you would be free to reprint it with your own cover and call it your own work.
And so on.
Anyone who sells software for a living (or any other intellectual property for that matter) should be thanking Judge Alsup.
How do absolutely any of those arguments apply to being able to dictate the HARDWARE that the software is installed on?
Just in case you didn't read the ruling,t he argument that Psystar was making was that it was legally entitled to install the OS because Psystar had PAID for the software, and that it was free to install it anywhere it chose to based on fair use.
It had nothing to do with overturning copyright law. Perhaps you should read the judgement before you go off on your rants?
The fact that you're not bright enough to follow the logic is your problem, not mine.
"Should a software company really have the right to dictate the hardware that it runs on legally?"
Umm, yea... that's why it is called a software license. You don't 'own' the software, you've licensed the right to run it under certain conditions. That said, I doubt Apple is trying to mess with how home users are using their products (they could, but I doubt they ever will). It is fairly obvious why they went after these guys.
So do you know what a license is? I think not.
Lets look at your drivers license. Driving is not your right. It?s a privilege given to you. Your license can be taken away when you break the law. Software is the same thing. You don't own it. Your given permission from an authority (software company) to own it or use it. If you use it illegally or pirate it or change it they can refuse your license and you lose the right to use it. WOW, what a concept.
LIke music. I'm assuming your one of these people that thinks when they buy the album they can do anything they want with it. Change the words or the notes and then its ok to sell as your own. Sorry. Same concept.
So the bottom line is that no software company should be able to dictate the hardware that we run the software on. Really. You are an idiot aren't you? And how many of these people you are taking about are using this software strictly for personal use?
No, the case states that you could not clone Apples in a commercial enterprise. And yes, Microsoft can dictate hardware requirements at any time they desire... for instance, try running Windows 7 on a PPC or Sparc processor.
"If and when there is a legitimate contender in the OS space, then antitrust wouldn't apply anymore, and both companies would have far too much power to control PC hardware."
Err, you may want to look around. Linux has a huge chunk of the server space and dominates the web space. Apple is growing like wildfire in consumer PCs and specially in the mobile arena. FreeBSD is still top choice when security is vital. There are legitimate OS contenders out there :) Perhaps you meant 'sufficiently large in marketshare'?
The monopoly issue comes up with Microsoft more often because of their licensing 'agreements' with the PC computer vendors. (I tried some years ago to order a custom built Dell WITHOUT Windows pre-installed - just a blank hard drive with Windows on an install disk thrown in - and it couldn't be done. They would not do it.)
Eventually I gave up and bought an Apple computer instead.
To be honest, I'm not one of those that was happy with the switch to Intel CPU, but I understand the reasons behind it. It does open a can of worms now that with a few minor tweaks one can install OSX on a hackintosh - I figure that it is only a matter of time that someone running OSX on of those boxes fingers a way to totally blow the security to pieces and it ends up as compromised as the Windows platform. I am not looking forward to that fiasco.
With that said, I don't disagree with hackintoshes at all. I do think they are neat, but the people that build them know full well that any OS update could break the system (as the Intel Atom users found out recently), but it is the price they willingly take to build their machines.
This issue with Psystar building systems is too dodgy for my tastes simply because it IS a hackintosh machine and Apple doesn't have to, and won't, focus on making sure that the software stays compatible with hardware that they don't use/source for their computers. Psystar users then have to wait to get updates - and to be honest.. many who buy these systems pre-built do so because they don't want, or know, how to build a computer on their own.
If you want a hackintosh.. you should bite the bullet and learn about computers and build one yourself!
(my next computer will be a hackintosh.. and HOW!)
Regards,
By saying that they are, you are only exposing yourself as an idiot of the first caliber.
actually it's you who has a serious conprehension problem here. They are only legally boxed copies of OSX when they're installed on Macs. You see, in case you haven't noticed, Apple is a hardware company. That's where they make their money. They sell the OS cheaper than MS does because they've already sold the computer.
If Psystar were to win, it would disrupt Apple's business model, and you'd be paying $299 for OSX.
See how that works? Also, the $29 license for SL is only if you already own Leopard. If not, that is also a violation of the EULA.
It's amazing how the Internet is so filled with people who have no clue when it comes to software licensing and business models.
"It's amazing how the Internet is so filled with people who have no clue when it comes to software licensing and business models."
I got a laugh out of that. Not that I'm disagreeing with you; it's the fact that you think everyone should know this stuff that I find hilarious. It's not like it's common sense or grade school knowledge. It's like saying, "jeez, I can't believe how many people out there don't understand the inner workings of the endocrine system" or "wow, the amount of people who aren't rocket scientists just blows my mind" or "really? You mean you don't understand the concept of m theory physics? You're an idiot."
You can't expect that just because you know something that it means everyone else does as well, especially if it's something that most people only have a basic understanding of, such as this. It just makes you sound like an arrogant *******, really. ;D
The legal basis for this claim was actually Apple saying 'Yeah, we got paid for our work, but we don't want you to use our work for your purpose regardless'.
@polaris20
Your comprehension is lacking.
If I pay for Apple software I'm good to go. Stop and think. I bought it I own it. I there is no problem. Can you find one? No? Didn't think so. So now I install my perfectly good and 100% legit software on a computer. Is there a problem? You don't know because now you have to ask "what did you install it on?" I may be good, or I may not be good. Strange when did my legal softare magicly turn illegal? I didn't pirate it after all. And therein is the flaw in logic.
That's the problem. I can own it and I'm goot so long as I do nothing, or install it on an apple branded pc.
Of course Apple sued (as you did notice) over a business practice. They want to be the only ones selling macs. That's why they stabbed their clone partners in the back when Jobs took over the second time.
Since when are monopolies legal? If they are, then it just goes to show how much of a failure the American public school systems are, because every history class I've ever taken disagrees with that declaration. Didn't the Standard Oil Company get in trouble for being a monopoly?
I'm honestly asking these questions, by the way, because I've always thought otherwise. I'm not trying to argue with anyone, just trying to discern the current truth.
Also, technically I don't think a monopoly is illegal---it is when a monopoly in one area is used to gain dominance in another area, that it is illegal. Microsoft having around 90% of the OS market isn't illegal. Microsoft using that market dominance to, say, boost its Internet browser at the expense of other browsers, is illegal.
Operating systems being more generic are similar though much more likely to have folks like me who hate Like OS X but don't like the MacBook's wish we could install it to create a computer that works better for us. That's when the Apple policy becomse a problem. Apple may like to preclude reselling their OS on a computer, but I claim fair use to install an OS on a computer regardless of who made it (Apple doesn't make their own computers hence the "apple branded wording in the EULA).
That's BS, too.
Without intellectual property protection, how much money do you expect that Apple or Microsoft would put into OS development? They'd sell one copy and then the other millions of users would download it free.
Why should Intel put billions of dollars into R&D if AMD can just steal the designs and process technology?
Why should Merck spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug if anyone could copy it?
What about musicians, artists, and authors? While there are undoubtedly a few who do their work for sheer enjoyment, but the vast majority do it so they can earn a living.
Intellectual property protection is what drives the world's economy. Arguing that it should be eliminated demonstrates an incredible lack of understanding of how business works.
Copyrights are vital for the first few years of a work's existence, as they protect the work and allow it room to grow, much as a seedling needs shelter when it first sprouts. Same with patents.
The problems lie with excess.
Copyrights were originally limited to something like 27 years - more than sufficient. Nowadays, they're extended to an ungodly length of time, well beyond even the work's original usefulness (you can thank Disney for that one).
Patents have their use in tangible concepts, and the term of time is still consistent. The problems lie in patenting software - software should remain covered by just copyright, and remain unpatentable - just as you cannot patent a mathematical algorithm, you really shouldn't be able to patent software... yet we stupidly do just that.
Okay, you, you, and you can leave class early. The rest of you need to read the ruling, it will save you a lot ignorant posting. Natalie was kind enough to share the URL with us, thank you Natalie. In case you missed the link, it was in blue colored text, here it is http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Psystar-214.pdf
- by simplybernie November 14, 2009 7:29 PM PST
- Bill Gates recently said, "Apple is in a bit of a different business (than Microsoft) where they make hardware and software together."
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Gold_Storm_Mac November 14, 2009 7:34 PM PST
- MW2 is the best on the PS3
- Like this
-
- by franzenk November 15, 2009 6:54 AM PST
- I have to say out of all the comments, this one is the best. I don't like it when people rant about an OS system they have never used. I have a MacBook pro that runs Snow Leopard, paralells that runs Win7 and I just installed Ubunto (Linux) to try it out. After I am done I will be able to say which I prefer and which one I think is best because I tried them all out. Still after that it will be my opinion and not a fact. Now I don't know law and I am not well versed on this whole situation but what seems right to me is that Apple is not a monopoly because they do not control all the computer platforms, only Apple. The reason Microsoft got hit with a monopoly lawsuit is because, if I remember correctly, they were trying to make IE the only browser by giving it for free. It was not allowing for other competition for the entire browser market. It was forcing web companies to make their web pages IE compatible only which also fueled the monopoly lawsuit. If I am wrong in my thinking I am sure someone will tell me but for me, that is what I think. Plus I was married to a lawyer when she was going through law school and the one thing she was taught was that being a lawyer is not about being right or wrong but it is about who can argue the best case. So money does buy great lawyers. This isn't about right and wrong its about who can argue their side better and with Apple's money their side won.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (238 Comments)So comparing Microsoft to Apple or Dell to Apple is like comparing McDonald's (PCs) to Dave and Busters (Apple).
What Psystar did was found illegal in the court of law. It was wrong in many of our opinions. While, I have built several Hackintoshes for fun, I own 2 G5s, 3 mac-mini's and 2 macbook pros. When I need technical support I am on my own in regards to the Hackintoshes, while Apple provides top notch customer service their products. For the typical user, Psystar's computer is more hassel than what it is worth because you can't update your OS normally and you don't get top quality support when updates breaks your system.
Now, my Hackintoshes also double as PCs. Honestly, as a Windows user I am disappointed that I am still using XP (which makes transitioning to Windows 7 a pain in the butt).
While Macs aren't for everybody, I think Macs are a great platform with excellent customer service with none of the pains that PCs go through. However, the best gaming platform in the world is the PC and Microsoft is about to wipe that out with the X-Box.
So maybe people should be taking their shots at Microsoft for the they've been mis-handling the PC industry the last 20 years.
Love,
I'm a PC (and a Mac) and my upgrade to Windows 7 sucks, so does Modern Warfare 2 on the PC.
LOL.