Comments on: Psystar shifts course, says Apple abusing copyright

With its antitrust claims having been rejected, the clone maker is now asserting that Apple abuses its copyrights by restricting Mac OS X to Apple-labeled computers.

[jaxstephens]

This Psystar company is a joke, and I don't know how it continues to stay in business. So Apple can't create software and hardware that only work with each other and nothing from other companies? If every piece of software ever made, even that for embedded systems, had to be runnable on the physical equipment of other companies, that would be crazy. Apple created Mac OS. And while I'd love to see Mac clones, Apple has every right to define how its software is used. Think if Motorola made the software for the RAZR phones and then was told that it should allow it to run on other devices. Get a clue, Psystar.

[fortyonejb]

Selling an OS separately from its hardware and then forcing it on hardware is what psystar is fighting. Lets look at nintendo, or sony, or even microsoft's game console. They all have an OS that runs on them, but they are not selling Wii OS in boxes at Best Buy. If you are going to tie hardware and software you cannot sell said software independently of the hardware and then turn around and require said hardware if it is capable of running on other compatible hardware. Psystar is not a joke, they are actually quite acutely pointed out how Apple is abusing the market.

[murbo]

@fortyonejb
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.

[fortyonejb]

@murbo

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.

[ittesi259]

So fortyonejb...

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.

[JoeF2]

@murbo
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.

[bluemist9999]

I think OS X checks for an encryption key in the hardware to make sure it is running on an Apple. It might be in the TPM for all I know.

[ballmerisanape]

Why can't I run windows mobile on my iPhone? Or the Palm OS for that matter...

[superswiss]

You can if you make it work yourself. Microsoft nor Palm will block you from doing it, but maybe Apple will. The issue at heart of this case is that you can buy OS X off the shelf, but Apple legally blocks you from installing it on anything other than Apple hardware. No other OS that is sold on its own has this kind of restriction.

[caseyahenry]

Let's get real here. Software companies have been selling "upgrade" versions of their products that are locked down by legal and virtual restrictions for a really long time. Whenever a story like this concerns Apple, however, it seems like people jump all over one another to complain about an alleged Apple monopoly.

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.

[Thranx]

because you havn't purchased Windows Mobile, or Palm OS 5.

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)

[Vegaman_Dan]

CNET's comment system failed as I was leaving a message. YEAARGH!

"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.

[RompStar_420]

I am sticking with Apple, I like that company. Psystar must be put down, since they seen to have rabies.

[pmbx]

Let's face it. The amendment is an act of DESPERATION! Psystar is going to lose, shirt, trousers, socks, and shoes over this one and they know it. What they are doing, I think, is thievery, pure and simple!

[Seanathome]

Not if there's enough supporters... ;)

[1eye1]

Apple should just drop it and give Pystar a big chunk of change to stop building these computer systems. Just in case some bitter Pystar employee with nothing to lose decides to post some easy to follow how to instructions all over the net.

[Vegaman_Dan]

That's a very good question. Apple can and has bought up competition in the past to make the issue quietly go away without ever having to say anything.

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.

[myles taylor]

There are already easy to follow (relatively speaking) instructions on how to do it all over the web. The thing is, it's not easy to do and you have to be fairly techy to do it. Apple doesn't care if a couple geeks do it; they care if a company is doing it and making money off of it by competing with them.

I don't see anyone can think that what Pystar is doing is okay.

[James7777777]

So what constitutes apple hardware? If I go find an old apple and install all new hardware in the old case, will it then pass the eula, after all it had apple hardware(the case) and is apple branded.

[umbrae]

Hardware checks are normally on the motherboard. It is the main "chain" in proprietary system as they have special power connectors and such that force you to use other proprietary components. An Apple case is just window dressing and the OS cannot see it.

[James7777777]

Yes the case is just dressing, but the EULA does not specifically state an Apple motherboard, just apple branded hardware.

[humanssssss]

Apple needs to enforce the Apple hardware when purchasing OSX. Like require all users who purchase OSX to have receipt of their Apple hardware. It is that Apple is not enforcing this requirement that people are running rampant to install OSX on 486, 586, Pentium, what have you machine. It is illegal states the EULA. People should not be allowed to install OSX on ANY machine except for Apple hardware.

[umbrae]

Welcome to SkyNet... Now terminating unauthorized and unlicensed carbon-based lifeform due to Apple EULA infraction....

[pithenumber]

Then we step in and bypass it

[Perry_Clease]

We do not buy OSX, we buy a license to use it as as specified in the license. Apple probably doesn't care too much about Joe the Geek who builds himself a Hacintosh, but if Joe starts selling them then that is a different story.

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.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Using my own copy of OSX, I did install, painfully, onto a PSP. Of course, it's doesn't work well or anything, it was just fun to do. However, I didn't go to another company or asked Sony to put OSX on it for me. Then there's those folks who have PearPC or CherryOS OSX emulators. What about them?

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.

[DaBeez]

First off, after a reading some of the comments at the top of this list I am reminded of how much I really would like to see a requirement enforced that would make it mandatory for those posters and bloggers that are paid to respond to articles, on sites such as this, to disclose who they are employed by. It is no secret to anyone that the company in Redmond (as well as too many others) employ minions to post corporate disinformation on sites all over the internet as a part of planned campaigns of "guerilla marketing". Clearly some posts on this thread are of that ilk.

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.

[monkeyfun14]

Do you realize how stupid you just sounded?

Really MS paying people to support psystar?

How does the MAC OS being sold on other computers benefit MS in anyway?

[pithenumber]

I am not paid by anybody to support Psystar
I support Psystar b/c I have a deep hatred of Apple and a love of Mac OS

[morlamweb]

Go, Psystar! Stick it to the Man!

[Groucho6]

Apple makes a single integrated product consisting of a piece of hardware and the software that makes it work. They are entitled to do so. Boxes sold in stores are upgrades only for the use of people who bought computers with the original version of the software. They are entitled to do that as well. Whether or not one thinks this policy of Apple's is right, wrong, wise, or stupid is irrelevant. Copyrights and trademarks exist to allow companies to own the rights to products and names. As long as those rights exist in law, one can't argue they have the "right" to break them simply because they want to resell a product whose owner refuses to sell to them.

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.

[ishamayana]

Why doesn't anyone look out for the guy who cannot afford one of Apple's new machines???? I am a very loyal, long time user of Apple. I have sold countless computers for Apple by referral. I have made Apple a lot of money by getting all of my computer customers to "switch". But I still use an 867Mhz G4 dinosaur!!! I cannot afford the new hardware. If apple will not look out for its loyal customers who cannot afford these ridiculously priced machines then I am all for Psystar or any other method of using OS X outside of Apple hardware. I also learned that Apple plans to drop support for PowerPC users in its next release of Snow Leopard. I can't believe they are doing this. Apple, stop stepping on your users who can't afford to keep up!!!!!!!!!!

[DaBeez]

There are two problems with your statement Sir or Madame. First, the new Macs are certainly less expensive than the Macs Apple was selling when you bought your "G4 dinosaur". Second, Apple has certainly not announced that it is dropping support for users on the PowerPC platform. While they may or may not include support for PowerPC computers with its new operating system, Snow Leopard, when it is introduced next year that does not mean that support for older versions of the OS will no longer be available. Might be a good idea to chill a bit.

[ishamayana]

to DaBeez. I got your "chill" danglin. You sound like one of those guys apple has patrolling the blogs. If you are, take heart to the important part of what I said about how many people I have switched to apple and get nothing in return for it. I'm not sure what new Macs cost back when G4's were out because I bought mine used, but the Macs today ARE outrageously priced. What do you think not allowing Snow Leopard to run on PowerPC is? If that isnt dropping support for us legacy users then I dont know what is. Might be a good idea for you to burn a bit.

[AppleProLeo]

Then I suggest you get a job.

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.

[humanssssss]

Apple understand very well that when they sell a licensed copy of a software product, they no longer have the right to said software product. The right they continue to retain is the copyright of the software product which permits them to resell upon which the copyright may expire or however authorized by the government to determine if the copyright can continue to exist due to many factors.

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.

[Perry_Clease]

Too bad you are not Pystar's lawyer because if there is one thing I want to see in this matter it is Apple winning the case.

[scweezil]

Again...Pystar the defender of freedom's EUA. Pystar has aEULA you say? Well of course they are weasels.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081204231414746

[Perry_Clease]

Thanks for that link, it is a very interesting read. I suggest all the posters here go read the article. In fact I dare you to read it,

[weeman17]

First three things needs to happen. One apple needs to start lowering the price of their products in order to attract other parts of the computer market (No of this $3000 computer). Second They need to allow other companies to use the software just put some limitations on it for useres other then apple (company promotion tactic). Third and probably the most important is that apple needs to expand beyond the graphics tool shed and into other aspects in the computer market. I would love to have a Macintosh at work. The problem is there is no PCL reader like Swiftview out for Mac ( An extremely expense PDF like reader. We sell to the local banks).

[Perry_Clease]

Why? Why do those three things need to happen?

[weeman17]

Because that is the only way apple is going to last longer in a growing market. This is important otherwise apple will be a museum relic in 20 years.

[Perry_Clease]

You all have been saying that for decades. Apple is doing just fine, and will continue to do just fine, without catering to the lowest common denominator.

[weeman17]

your missing the point. apple has only kept kicking because it changed its tactics. They came very close to being known only as the maker of the i-pod. If they are not careful, this can't be excepted to keep. look at it from an economics stand point, not a loyal apple user stand point. I have a macbook pro and i love the operating system. Mac still does seem to be a persons first choice.

[weeman17]

It doesn't seem to be the consumers top choice

[vmlenigma]

Apple should Fight it until it crushes Pystar. Look at the crap that Dell, HP and all those clone Makers put out, I paid a Premium for the computers that I have, and If I had to choose Quantity over Quality.....Im sticking with my Macs
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?

[pithenumber]

You paid a premium for your computer, that sucks for you.

Apple just betrayed you right there, they forced you to buy Mac hardware.
Psystar is trying to save you from Apple's wrath

[dennis_the_bug]

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.