Apple suit: Psystar's Mac clones must be recalled
Apple's list of grievances against Mac clone maker Psystar spans 16 pages, but, in the end, its argument boils down to the one expected. Psystar, Apple says, had no right to do what it did, and should be stopped and forced to pay.
Psystar's Open Computer, as seen shortly after its unboxing at CNET.
(Credit: CNET News)In its lawsuit, a copy of which was seen by CNET News courtesy of our colleagues at ZDNet, Apple alleges copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, as well as a couple of other legal claims. It seeks any profits earned by Psystar from its Open Computer, triple damages for willful acts, a permanent injunction against the sale of the product, as well as recall of those units already sold.
"Apple licenses the use of its Macintosh operating system software for use only on Apple-labeled hardware," the Mac maker says in the suit (click here for PDF) adding that the only way to get a full version of the Mac OS is on a new machine. The boxed software product, it says, is only an upgrade version, valid only for upgrading an existing, Apple-branded Macintosh.
Apple argues that by selling the Open Computer in conjunction with a copy of the Mac OS, Psystar both infringed on Apple's copyright and induced purchasers to also violate Apple's copyright.
News.com Poll
The infringement, Apple says, "is and continues to be intentional, willful, and in conscious disregard of Apple's rights." It also alleges that its use of Apple's trademarks "is likely, if not certain, to deceive or cause confusion or mistake" over whether there is a connection between Apple and Psystar.
A Psystar employee told CNET News on Tuesday that no one was available to comment on Apple's suit.
However, Apple charges that Psystar owners and managers have admitted in public statements their knowledge of the existence of Apple's software license agreement and its terms.
Because the infringements were willful, Apple says it is entitled to triple damages.
A status conference in the case is set for October.
Mark A. Goldstein, a lawyer with the Westlake Village, Ca.-based SoCal IP Law Group, said Apple's case appears to be a "slam dunk."
"In view of the Grokster ruling, it's hard to see any viable argument (for Psystar)," he said.
"If Psystar only sold hardware without an OS or only with Ubuntu or MS XP, then the case would be wholly different," he said. "They could assert that there are substantial non-infringing uses. That is, a hardware maker/reseller should be able to sell a computer that can run multiple operating systems."
"That they are selling Apple OS leaves them open for direct and contributory copyright infringement," Goldstein added.
John Ferrell, chairman of the intellectual property practice at Carr & Ferrell, also wondered what legal theory Psystar will used to defend their cloning of the Mac.
"Using copies of Apple's operating system to build Apple look-alikes was thought to have been clearly settled in the 1983 landmark copyright decision that put the last of the significant Apple clone makers, Franklin Computer, out of the Apple business," he said in an e-mail interview. "Apple's Macintosh products are protected by a wide range of intellectual property assets including copyrights, patents, and trademarks. It's no (coincidence) that there have been no successful Macintosh 'me-too' manufacturers in the past quarter of a century."
Ferrell added that One Infinite Loop, the road that stretches through Apple's headquarters, "is littered with the wrecked business plans of companies that have tried to copy and sell Apple look-alikes."
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Infringe on trademark. Psystar didn't call the computer Apple. What trademark? Apple should lose its trademark because Apple is a dictionary word. I wish someone will sue Apple so it loses its trademark that way it can't go after anyone for Apple trademark infringement. Apple will have to change its name or allow other companies to use Apple as its name, this will cause it to lose A LOT of money. If I have money, I'm going to do that.
Steve Jobs need to go to jail. He kept on suing people left and right. Karma is going to come to you batch.
Outside of software products have uses beyond their intent and those uses are considered reasonable. A screwdriver to open a can of paint for example.
Personally I hope Apple loses. If they win (and the merit of that is absed on the "ugrade" nature of the product vs. a full copy which apparently you can't buy) I hope it's limited entirly to the OS so Psystar can send out XP and some instructions on how the owner can add versitility to their computer by installing the Mac OS should they have it laying around.
But if you observe closely, no such licensed hammer is available for sale. Because no one would buy it. Your example, though seemingly cunning, is moot.
"Apple alleges copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, as well as a couple of other legal claims."
There's plenty to sink Psystar with without even mentioning the EULA
It's funny how people trash MS when Apple is the same or worse.
Apple is just as bad as MS.
Slam dunk for apple.
I get the feeling that Psystar is just some guy selling computers out of his garage. In that case, it is kind of ironic that Apple was founded in much the same way, although with a legitimate product to sell.
I then used it to install on my PC box (i.e. OpenMac Psystar) I own a license, and how is apple to stop me from installing it? they can suck it!
They also offered to pre-install OSX on the the PCs
"Apple licenses the use of its Macintosh operating system software for use only on Apple-labeled hardware," the Mac maker says in the suit (click here for PDF) adding that the only way to get a full version of the Mac OS is on a new machine. The boxed software product, it says, is only an upgrade version, valid only for upgrading an existing, Apple-branded Macintosh.
Since you installed Leopard on your "iMac", you had already bought a license for the Mac OS Upgrade, when you bought your iMac. No matter what version of Mac OS you are running on a Mac, it is upgradable to the latest copy, you already own the license. You bought it when you bought the computer. And that license would still work across different platforms (PPC, Intel) as long as the Software and Hardware are compatible.
And for the PC Box, well you just publicly admitted that you broke the law. If I were you, I would now be praying that Psystar wins this case. You could be next. They have the proof. It would be another "Slam Dunk"
Think you'll read the story next time?
The Counter Argument is that using the same componenets to make the same computer that the software recognizes as legit IS And apple computer...A Rose by another name.
If only Psystar had a bright attorney on staff. IT's not like they couldn't anticipate Apple's suing.
Given there used to be clone companies who made Apple Computers er...Clones I'm sure that Pystar for a buck and a donut could buy that right from them.
sina loghavi
Apple's licenses are socialist version of software.
RIght there is where I stopped reading your post, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. - Even if you win, you're still retarded." ?
Do some research before you post stupid mistakes like that.
iTouch! ridiculous!
Apple is now trying to get the iPhone trademark. Cisco could very well end up paying Apple back if they really want to use the iPhone name. You think Apple is stupid. They had this planned from day one. Now that the iPhone will be know throughout modern history (yes it will be, face it). There is NO WAY for Cisco to say a product of theirs can be called an iPhone and succeed without being mistaken for Apples now famous iPhone. Thats what a trademark protects and Cisco handed this to Apple when they let them use the name. Everyone make out but Apple get what they wanted.
Yes, because using Apple's Boot Camp hurts the sale of MicroSoft's PC sales.
OTOH, Given the relative sizes, it'll likely turn out that Psystar will probably go bankrupt before the outcome arrives.
As for recalling them? Heh... fat chance.
/P
Probably all Apple needs is to win one of the items in the lawsuit in order to get Psystar from selling the Mac clones.
Anyway, it is up to real lawyers, judges, and the people on the jury should it ever get to that far.
One angle is, what does this mean for sites such as osxx86.org? Now they're a hobbyist site, mind, so there's no commercial angle at all. Considering that Apple hasn't gone after them in spite of their being around a lot longer, I think that the line concerns commercial sales (of either updates or the installs...)
There was a country in Europe that did that in the 40's. Perhaps you might be familiar with the black uniforms with red armbands with 'SS' on them? Hmm.
Apple Computer does sell some music. They gave some money to Beatles and now everything is good.
You are its called the government, and every other product out there.
Hell, lets all go on red and stop on green.
Plus its also deceptive to a customer to tell them they have Mac OS X (which is true out of the box) but after software updates they do not have the exact same code as a person using an Apple Computer.
Psystar cannot sell copies of Mac OS X unless Apple gives them permission. To do so is to sell someone else's property and (presumably) make a profit from it. The alternative is that they only "gave away" Mac OS X and "sold" the computer. This is still illegal because in that case they would be giving away someone else's (Apple Inc.'s) property.
It's a property called Fair Use. You have the right to use software so long as you have a legitimate version of it as you wish. You can then dispose (sell it) again as you wish; some software makers tried to put the kibosh on that and LOST. As long as Psystar doesn't charge more than the cost of the software, they AREN'T profitting from it (Apple is, because it's a legitimate boxed copy that was bought from Apple, either directly or indirectly). If Psystar installs the OS and boots the system, they have "Used the software", and have violated the EULA, but have NOT committed copyright infringement, because the copy installed was legitimate to begin with.
I'm sorry, but all these "Slam Dunk for Apple" comments are BS. It's VERY definitely not a slam dunk; Apple will win, though, because they have $$$$ for more lawyers, and Steve "Senator Palpatine" Jobs is sue happy... overwhelm them with legal fees to put them out of business before the actual case reaches trial, where they may win.
It was down earlier today and then back up later. It may be a technical problem, they seemed to have the same problem back when they first started violating Apple's EULA
- by mlinder69 July 15, 2008 1:29 PM PDT
- Regardless of how you feel about the laws, how apple does business is exactly why I would never buy a thing from them, they suck far worse than MS every thought about.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by exmsft July 15, 2008 3:35 PM PDT
- Huh?
-
-
- by Penguinisto July 15, 2008 4:27 PM PDT
- Microsoft does the same thing to anyone and everyone business-wise who dares to violate their EULA. The GNU Foundation does the same thing to any entity who violates the GNU GPL.
-
-
- by applusr July 15, 2008 11:40 PM PDT
- Internet Explorer...it has to be installed on windows.
-
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (213 Comments)...your point?