Apple Moves for Permanent Injunction in Psystar Case

| News

Apple detailed what it wants out of Judge William Alsup's  summary judgement in its case against Psystar for building and selling Mac clones without authorization: A permanent injunction blocking the PC maker from selling computers with any version of Mac OS X, and from distributing any products that help other people install Mac OS X on PCs.

Apple filed a lawsuit against Psystar in Northern California several months ago claiming the small PC maker was violating the Mac OS X end user license agreement, and that it was violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act with the steps it used to install the Mac operating system on PCs. Psystar claimed that it should be allowed to build and sell PCs with Mac OS X pre-installed and that Apple is overstepping its bounds by blocking companies from selling Mac clones.

Both companies filed motions for Summary Judgement, and in the end Judge William Alsup ruled in favor of Apple and against Psystar.

"Psystar Corporation has built its business on infringing Apple Inc.'s copyrights and trademarks, free-riding on Apple's research and development efforts, and trading on Apple's hard-earned reputation for high quality, innovative and easy-to-use computers," Apple said in its court filing. "Psystar's appropriation of Apple's intellectual property and goodwill has been systematic and brazen, from the name of Psystar's 'OpenMac' computers to its deliberate pirating of Apple's Mac OS X."

Apple added that if Psystar isn't permanently blocked, the company will continue to sell hack Mac OS X and sell Mac clones.

Apple is specifically asking the court to prohibit Psystar from directly or contributing to the infringement of Apple's copyrights for Mac OS X, circumventing the protections measures in Mac OS X, possessing any devices that can circumvent the operating system's protection measures, and selling any devices or components that can aid in the process of circumventing the protection measures.

In other words, Apple is asking the court to block Psystar from hacking all versions of Mac OS X, and from building and selling its Rebel EFI product, too. Rebel EFI lets users install Mac OS X on any PC.

Since the case in Norther California started before the introduction of Mac OS X 10.6, or Snow Leopard, Psystar filed its own case against Apple in Florida after the new version of the operating system shipped.

Psystar has several days to prepare and file its response to Apple's motion. The PC maker will likely try to convince Judge Alsup that Snow Leopard shouldn't be included in any injunction in an effort to keeps its case against Apple alive in Florida.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

39 Comments Leave Your Own

Jeff Gamet

It doesn’t look like there are any surprises in Apple’s filing, and now it looks like the Psystar legal team will be pretty busy over the Thanksgiving holiday.

zewazir

There are two things that have surprised me in this whole fiasco.  First is that Apple did not ask for an immediate injunction. And the second is why it has taken so long to even partially resolve what should ave been a slam-dunk case of outright copyright violation.

jbruni

And the second is why it has taken so long to even partially resolve what should ave been a slam-dunk case of outright copyright violation.

Creative lawyering. Visit Groklaw for all the sordid details. At one point, Psystar filed bankruptcy which suspended this case.

geoduck

Creative lawyering

Exactly. Whomever is pouring a small fortune into this legal little-bighorn has no illusions of winning. I doubt they ever did. They just wanted to delay and delay, and drag this out as long as possible in order to cost Apple as much money as possible.

Which makes me wonder what PsyStar’s next move will be. They will try to get 10.6 split off from 10.5. Once they lose that will they continue to make and sell, thereby forcing Apple to go back into court again to try to get the injunction enforced? Will they move to the Bahamas and keep making and selling? Either of those would not be that much further of a step beyond the inexcusably unethical behaviour they’ve shown up till now.

Voice

Considering that *APPLE* originally claimed that the original case had nothing to do with 10.6 (which hadn’t even been released when the case was filed) in order to prevent Psystar from being able to do discovery about 10.6, I’m pretty sure that including it at this stage (after discovery has closed) would give Psystar a point for appeal.

gnasher729

Considering that *APPLE* originally claimed that the original case had nothing to do with 10.6 (which hadn?t even been released when the case was filed) in order to prevent Psystar from being able to do discovery about 10.6, I?m pretty sure that including it at this stage (after discovery has closed) would give Psystar a point for appeal.

Not at all. It is perfectly reasonable that when a company has been found guilty of illegal copying, illegal modification and illegal distribution of _one_ copyrighted work, there should be an injunction that they are not allowed to illegally copy, modify or distribute any other copyrighted work either.

It would be completely unreasonable to ask Apple to file a new complaint in court for MacOS X 10.6, 10.6.1, 10.6.2, and so on.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@geoduck… If this appears to cost Apple lots of time and lawyer money, and they end up with nothing but an injunction against Psystar, this could effectively let 1,000 Psystars bloom. Could Apple effectively fight this same battle on 10 concurrent fronts? At that point, it becomes a game of percentages for an entrepreneur. What percent of shops will get dragged to court by Apple? What percent will lose their case after dragging it out for a year or two? Budget $500K for attorney time in the worst case, and the Psystar business model looks almost tenable.

The biggest thing to learn from this case if you wanted to make your own Mac clone company is to not image drives. Hire a college kid at $20/hour to carefully open each Mac OS X box, take out that CD, install on a drive, then hand the drive off to automatic patching process. Record the process on video 24/7 using the iSight on a high quality iMac. So now if Apple sues you, it has to pull something else out of its ass during the two year process to convince the judge that you’re a bad guy.

I’ve said from the beginner (and taken a lot of crap on these boards for saying it) that the last thing Apple ever wanted to do was test its EULA in court. It’s a no win. Apple will get dragged kicking and screaming first into licensing and then into supporting reference platforms. Many years ago, when my Mom was teaching me to drive, she encouraged me to strive to be extra aware, beyond what driver’s ed taught. She said, “you know Bosco, you can be dead right”. Best business advice I ever got.

geoduck

If Apple allows Clones Apple will be dead in 5 years
Period

zewazir

The biggest thing to learn from this case if you wanted to make your own Mac clone company is to not image drives. Hire a college kid at $20/hour to carefully open each Mac OS X box, take out that CD, install on a drive, then hand the drive off to automatic patching process. Record the process on video 24/7 using the iSight on a high quality iMac. So now if Apple sues you, it has to pull something else out of its ass during the two year process to convince the judge that you?re a bad guy.

Not quite.  The reason imaging the disk was found to be a violation of copyright is because the image was then used to produce illicit copies of the OS. The reason the copies were illicit is because there was no previous full version of the Mac OS to upgrade on the non-Mac PCs.

I can make a disk image of an OS installer, and use it to maintain a lab of 30 Macs, and Apple will have no problem with it.  That is because I have a previous, FULL license of the Mac OS on each lab station. When we purchased a 10.4 upgrade for a lab of eMacs running 10.3, I simply upgraded one station, installed all the online upgrades (10.4.11, Java, etc.), and then made an image of that disk to upgrade all the other stations, using Carbon Copy Cloner.

Note that Apple has never gone after CCC. That is because the purpose of CCC is to make legitimate backups and copies of the Mac OS. The purpose of PsyStars image was to make illegal copies, because PsyStar is using an OS UPGRADE license to create a new, unique copy of the Mac OS.  That is why it is a violation of copyright, which is what the summary judgment mentions, as opposed to a EULA violation, which the summary judgment does NOT mention.

Apple complained about the use of a disk image because how PsyStar used their disk image violated copyright. If PsyStar had, like you suggest, opened every OS X installer package and used the original disk, they STILL would have been violating copyright by using an upgrade license to create a new full copy of the OS.

PsyStar tried to claim their procedure was legitimate because Apple’s license allows a disk image to be created. Apple countered that the license allows a disk image only for archiving, not for making additional copies of their OS.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@geoduck. Absolut Horse Shit. (Imagine Zenyatta trotting off the track after her recent Breeder’s Cup victory relieving herself as she prances in front of all the boys she just beat down. Vodka bottle prominently in foreground.)

You need to think like a businessman or, better, an economist rather than an Apple KoolAid drinker. If Apple requires this exclusive hardware/software tying to maintain profitability, what does that say about its products vis a vis market demand? Overspec’d and overpriced. Why would any firm (Psystar included) risk lawsuits, lack of support from Apple, etc. to ship Mac clones? Because they see an opportunity to deliver more value at lower price. Microsoft has played very effectively in the super low cost netbook space with an EOL’d two major versions ago operating system (call it the equivalent of 10.3 if you like). Apple will play there too or just permanently lose a growing share of user, applications, and deployments. Few people need to spend $1200 to $2000 on a pretty iMac with a cracked screen.

geoduck

Let me continue my earlier thought further.

An injunction is the first step. Eventually the case will reach the penalty phase. Apple should demand, and IMO might even get, a fine of the retail price of an iMac for every clone and copy of Rebel EFI sold. Hit PsyStar with, I don’t know, a few million dollars in penalty.

Then you would NOT have any other morons trying to make a business out of stealing Apple products. Then you would not have a thousand people making clones of Macs. They know they wouldn’t dare.

Bosco, I just don’t understand why you think Apple should roll over and surrender to thieves. Appeasement does not work. the big {legal} stick does.

zewazir

Apple will get dragged kicking and screaming first into licensing and then into supporting reference platforms.

As long as Apple sells any OS separate from its hardware as an upgrade and not full license, there will be no need to test the EULA.  It is illegal to buy an upgrade license and use it to create a full license copy of ANY software.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@zewazir: You miss the trees through the forest. You are arguing Apple’s high level case about upgrades, but the actual means of proving the case against Psystar is the imaging station. So if you want to start your own Psystar, be a little more careful and create new work for Apple’s lawyers to do if they wish to drag you into court. Multiply by 10 or 100 or 1000 and you’re a little safer than being the only fish swimming upstream.

Let’s posit for the sake of argument that Apple is 100% right in this case. If you are an investor, doesn’t it worry you a little bit that some little piss ant company can drag this affair out for a year or two until there is positive and permanent resolution in Apple’s favor? Doesn’t that reality suggest to you that (a) that there are strong incentives for more piss ants to come along and do the same thing, and (b) that you’re gonna be awfully busy dealing with piss ants to protect your artificial business model?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

As long as Apple sells any OS separate from its hardware as an upgrade and not full license, there will be no need to test the EULA.? It is illegal to buy an upgrade license and use it to create a full license copy of ANY software.

Wrong. It is not illegal. It is a violation of a shrink-wrap contract. Enforcement of EULAs in courts has been sparse and mixed. It’s probably worth taking a chance on if you don’t have too much to lose. Which brings up an obvious follow-up from B-School 101. Why in the hell doesn’t Apple have an arrangement which brings would-be cloners under signed contract and loser-pays binding arbitration? I.e. why doesn’t Apple just deal with these people?

zewazir

If Apple requires this exclusive hardware/software tying to maintain profitability, what does that say about its products vis a vis market demand?

It says that Apple, quite appropriately, does not want to end up with an over bloated, problematic operating system as the result of trying to support all the different makes and styles of optical drives, video cards, network cards, etc. etc. etc.  Your claim that Apple’s hardware is over spec’d and over priced is the lame bull stuff of the typical whiny twit who wants their cake while also eating it.

One of the primary reasons Macs work the way they do is because Apple controls the hardware as well as the software. In doing so, they can keep their OS lean and clean by avoiding the need to support hardware they do not use in their devices.

You can wish for a license release all you want.  Apple already tried that and it almost ran them into the ground.  They will not do it again.

It’s quite simple.  If you don’t like Apple’s prices, do not buy Apple computers. But don’t expect that because you and others WANT Apple’s OS, just not at their prices, that your desires constitute some over riding “market demand” that Apple, or any company, is obligated to respond to. That attitude is nothing less than entitlism at its worst.

zewazir

Wrong. It is not illegal.

Learn the law, then get back to this.

It is ILLEGAL, as in an outright violation of COPYRIGHT, purchase an upgrade license and create a full version of the software without owning a previous full version of the software.  Why do you think their is such a huge price difference between the upgrade license for Adobe CS4, and the full license for Adobe CS4?  Do you think Adboe could not, successfully, prosecute a business if they purchased a bunch of CS4 upgrades, (having never purchased any previous version) and used a hack to install a full version?  You bet your bippy they would have a case. Buying an upgrade and creating a full version from it without owning a previous version IS a violation of copyright laws, period. (Not to mention being outright theft.)

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Blah blah blah… You hear the same thing in politics… If you don’t like Clinton/Bush/Obama, get the hell out of America. Blah, blah, blah.

Let me try to restate my point. Apple does not have as absolute, far-reaching, or immediate copyright as you claim or think. This is just reality. They can’t come storming into a Hackintosher’s home and take away their operating system or arrest him. The Psystar case will drag out almost two years before it’s resolved. People realize that reach and immediacy are in their favor, not Apple’s. So they violate the EULA and Apple effectively leaves money on the table.

You wanna know the really funny thing about this? Big companies play both sides of this infringement game all the time in the realm of patents. They can’t avoid it because our patent system is open to all sorts of abuses. And then everyone gets all hot and bothered when it spills over to the realm of copyright and contract.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

It is ILLEGAL, as in an outright violation of COPYRIGHT, purchase an upgrade license and create a full version of the software without owning a previous full version of the software.? Why do you think their is such a huge price difference between the upgrade license for Adobe CS4, and the full license for Adobe CS4?? Do you think Adboe could not, successfully, prosecute a business if they purchased a bunch of CS4 upgrades, (having never purchased any previous version) and used a hack to install a full version?? You bet your bippy they would have a case. Buying an upgrade and creating a full version from it without owning a previous version IS a violation of copyright laws, period. (Not to mention being outright theft.)

Nope. It’s a violation of the license. Copyright law does not define variable pricing schemes. Nor does it define hardware tying.

Now, what do you think would happen to Adobe’s reputation if it sued customers for failing to correctly self-select into the preferred price group? This crap happens all the time to every software company. To stay sane, you create other ways of addressing the problem, such as denying support to people who cheat your system, using call-home activation (for added DMCA protection and higher compliance), etc. Suing your customers is a moot point. Ask AutoDesk about that.

geoduck

Suing your customers is a moot point.

PsyStar is not a customer. They are thieves. Apple will not go after the casual guy putting OS-X on a Dell carcass. they have every right to go after those that would sell clones and cost Apple hardware sales.

If you are an investor, doesn?t it worry you a little bit that some little piss ant company can drag this affair out for a year or two until there is positive and permanent resolution


It makes me wonder about the US legal system. As a stockholder I’m all for Apple protecting my investment against criminals. Would you want Sears to stop going after shoplifters because the battle will go on forever?

you create other ways of addressing the problem,

That is what I suspect Apple will do. Some kind of hardware verification that looks at the system and if it is not Genuine Apple the software won’t run. Will there be ways to crack this, even on 64 Bit? Possibly, but the real target is not the casual hacker, it is the person who would try to make and SELL clones.

Ya know Bosco, you come across as someone with a very strong Libertarian outlook. I often agree with your opinions on other subjects. It escapes me why in the PsyStar case alone you are not on the side of law and property rights and a businesses right to protect its work. Instead you seem to support the thieves and anarchists. It really baffles me.

zewazir

Nope. It?s a violation of the license.

COpyright law, with respect to software and other intangibles, INCLUDE licensing rights.  Without licensing, no one could legally use software in the first place. The license gives the purchaser the right to make a copy of the software. Without that license, you could buy a piece of software, but would be unable to use it because the process of using it, by necessity, makes a copy in RAM, even if it does not write a permanent copy onto the hard drive.

Under copyright law, it is illegal to make any copy, temporary or permanent, (other than for certain limited “fair use” educational purposes), of any intellectual property - unless they have obtained permission from the copyright holder. This protection applies whether the IP is writing, music, or computer code. It is ONLY through the license (ie: written PERMISSION from the holder of the copyright) that the purchaser of a piece of software may copy that software, temporarily or permanently, onto their computer.

As such, the permission granted by the copyright holder may, indeed, contain such limitations on the copy they are allowing the user to make. One such condition which may be placed is the requirement of a previous version of software in order to use an upgrade version.

In fact, the idea that a copyright holder is somehow limited in what conditions they place on their permission to make a copy of their IP may be the stance that has the lesser of legal foundations. It is beyond unrealistic to make the claim that because the copyright holder gave permission to make a copy of their IP, it means the user can do whatever they wish with that permission.

gnasher729

Wrong. It is not illegal. It is a violation of a shrink-wrap contract. Enforcement of EULAs in courts has been sparse and mixed. It?s probably worth taking a chance on if you don?t have too much to lose. Which brings up an obvious follow-up from B-School 101. Why in the hell doesn?t Apple have an arrangement which brings would-be cloners under signed contract and loser-pays binding arbitration? I.e. why doesn?t Apple just deal with these people?

Bosco, you ignorant malfeasant, without a SLA you have no license to copy. Without a license to copy, every copy is copyright infringement. And since you can’t get around Apple’s DRM without DMCA infringement, whatever you do, Apple will get a $2500 DMCA fine _per copy_ against you, plus cost of lawyers.

Joe Anonymous

Considering that *APPLE* originally claimed that the original case had nothing to do with 10.6 (which hadn?t even been released when the case was filed) in order to prevent Psystar from being able to do discovery about 10.6, I?m pretty sure that including it at this stage (after discovery has closed) would give Psystar a point for appeal.

That is spurious logic.

The case is and always was about “Mac OS X”. At the time of Psystar’s discovery request, 10.6 was not a commercial product and Apple objected to the discovery request on that basis. It’s entirely reasonable to argue that there’s no reason to do discovery on a beta which might never see the light of day.

The judge’s order specifically states that Psystar’s use of Mac OS X (without any reference to version numbers) is illegal. It would be almost unimaginable that it wouldn’t apply to all versions. But if, for some bizarre reason, the court says it applies only to 10.5, it would not be that hard to add 10.6 in a follow-up filing. Since this one was settled by summary judgment, the court would simply have to determine if the facts were essentially the same (and they are) before making a ruling on 10.6.

Joe Anonymous

The biggest thing to learn from this case if you wanted to make your own Mac clone company is to not image drives. Hire a college kid at $20/hour to carefully open each Mac OS X box, take out that CD, install on a drive, then hand the drive off to automatic patching process. Record the process on video 24/7 using the iSight on a high quality iMac. So now if Apple sues you, it has to pull something else out of its ass during the two year process to convince the judge that you?re a bad guy.

I?ve said from the beginner (and taken a lot of crap on these boards for saying it) that the last thing Apple ever wanted to do was test its EULA in court. It?s a no win.

Not even close. That imaging process was only ONE of the reasons Psystar lost this case. They lost virtually every other argument - and the court upheld Apple’s EULA.

In fact, the court specifically said that even the end user using Psystar machines would be guilty of copyright violation and Psystar is a contributory infringer.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Ya know Bosco, you come across as someone with a very strong Libertarian outlook. I often agree with your opinions on other subjects. It escapes me why in the PsyStar case alone you are not on the side of law and property rights and a businesses right to protect its work. Instead you seem to support the thieves and anarchists. It really baffles me.

It’s really pretty simple. Apple is pissing into the wind on hardware tying. It switched to Intel because it wanted all the price/performance advantages of that market, but simultaneously, does not want to adopt the customs of that market. The defining custom is that components can be pieced together to make systems. It’s what made the Intel Architecture marketplace attractive enough to prompt Apple to switch from PPC.

I am for law and property rights. What I’m not for is companies making up their own arbitrary laws, relying on a mouse click to collect agreement, and relying on courts to enforce those arbitrary laws. I take the Hayekian perspective, which distinguishes between legislation (written rules) and law (what people actually do). More people’s interests are satisfied when legislation matches law, because there is less conflict between what people do and what they are “allowed” to do. Textbook example: repeal of 55 mph speed limit.

In the marketplace, if your counterparties’ behavior is not matching the contract you wrote (or agreed to), there are a couple approaches you can take. (1) You can assume your counterparty didn’t get spanked as a child or had too much instant success during the dot-com boom or whines a lot or is an ignorant malfeasant, and you are pretty much cut off from doing more value exchange with that counterparty. (2) You can put yourself in the counterparty’s and try to figure out why they don’t want it your way. Knowing this, you can choose to address the issue and find a way to continue to do business.

@gnasher729: That is a nice legal theory. Ask the RIAA how that plays out when you have to sue 50 million infringers. You use a lot of court time, spend a lot on lawyers, tank your public image, and have zero effect on the amount of infringement while your industry profits are lowered and you hand control of it to an upstart distributor in a market you don’t understand. I’m not saying you’re morally or legally wrong in an academic sense. In a practical sense, though, you’re on a losing side of the equation.

Joe Anonymous

It?s really pretty simple. Apple is pissing into the wind on hardware tying. It switched to Intel because it wanted all the price/performance advantages of that market, but simultaneously, does not want to adopt the customs of that market. The defining custom is that components can be pieced together to make systems. It?s what made the Intel Architecture marketplace attractive enough to prompt Apple to switch from PPC.

I am for law and property rights. What I?m not for is companies making up their own arbitrary laws, relying on a mouse click to collect agreement, and relying on courts to enforce those arbitrary laws. I take the Hayekian perspective, which distinguishes between legislation (written rules) and law (what people actually do). More people?s interests are satisfied when legislation matches law, because there is less conflict between what people do and what they are ?allowed? to do. Textbook example: repeal of 55 mph speed limit.

Sorry, but Apple isn’t pissing into the wind on connecting the OS with the hardware. It is a core of their business model - and was strongly upheld by the recent court decision.

Apple has no obligation to follow the customs in any market. In fact, much of their success has been based on revolutionizing the business model. Otherwise, you’d still be using that silly command line ‘custom’ for everything.

It appears that the real problem is that you don’t understand the difference between a law and a license. Apple offers a product for sale. You can either buy it and agree to the sale or go buy something else. That is a sound example of property rights. Your view of property rights is that property rights are only valid if you like them - which is just plain absurd.

Your definition of law (what people actually do) is equally absurd. So if 51% of people drive 55 mph, that’s the law, but if a few of them get in a hurry and decide to go faster, that becomes the law? How many people doing doing something does it take for that to become the ‘law’? Back in the 1950’s, the majority of people felt that segregation was OK. So that was the law?  Sounds to me like you’re arguing for anarchy, not rule of law.

zewazir

It?s really pretty simple. Apple is pissing into the wind on hardware tying. It switched to Intel because it wanted all the price/performance advantages of that market, but simultaneously, does not want to adopt the customs of that market. The defining custom is that components can be pieced together to make systems. It?s what made the Intel Architecture marketplace attractive enough to prompt Apple to switch from PPC.

Apple chose Intel because Intel was leading the market in innovation causing Apple to fall behind if they’d remained with Motorola or IBM.  Motorola had long ago dropped the ball, and IBM decided to pursue gaming consoles, leaving Apple high and dry waiting for a laptop processor equivalent to the G5.

There were (and are) a number of different processors out there besides Intel.  The concept that just because a computer uses Intel processor means it is automatically subject to some nefarious “custom” of DIY computers made from randomly selected components is a fallacy right out of a hallucinogenic induced dream.

geoduck

If anything ‘the market’ seems to be going toward hardware tied to software. Smart phones, game consoles, etc are increasingly less and less user customizable.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

You can either buy it and agree to the sale or go buy something else.

Such typical engineer thinking… “either this or that”. The problem with such dichotomies is when there is indeed a third option (or additional options), as evidenced by a whole bunch of people exercising it (or them). In this case, Hackintosher, Psystar, Psystar customers.

Joe, do yourself a favor and Google for hayek law legislation before making an ass out of yourself with two wrongly stated “examples” that just prove the point. grin

zewazir

What I?m not for is companies making up their own arbitrary laws, relying on a mouse click to collect agreement, and relying on courts to enforce those arbitrary laws.

An EULA is not a “law”. It is a contract in which the copyright holder of a piece of intellectual property gives the purchaser written permission to make a copy of their copyrighted material.

As the copyright holder, anyone who gives permission to copy their IP also has the right to place limits on what may be done with said copy.

As for “market forces”, it would seem Apple knows a bit more about it than you do, considering they are growing their market share in practically every area they choose to enter a competing item. iPods are so popular the name has become the “kleenex” of MP3 players. iPhones carved out a significant market share of the smart phone industry so fast peoples’ head are still spinning. And the market share of Apple computers continues to add points (especially in the home computing market) despite being “overspec’d and over priced” - which would mean enough people disagree with your assessment to keep Apple a prosperous and growing company. And THAT is a hell of a lot stronger “market force” that those of you wanting the advantages of Apple’s OS X without paying for the rest that goes with it.

Joe Anonymous

Such typical engineer thinking? ?either this or that?. The problem with such dichotomies is when there is indeed a third option (or additional options), as evidenced by a whole bunch of people exercising it (or them). In this case, Hackintosher, Psystar, Psystar customers.

Such typical criminal thinking.

Yes, given the choice between buying something in a store or not buying it, I also have the option of shoplifting it. Sorry I left that out. It’s just as illegal as what you’re suggesting, but I guess it’s an option.

Sorry, but the fact that there are criminals out there who break the law doesn’t make their actions legal - even if there are LOTS of them.

As for the rest, as soon as we get a new Constitution written by Hayek, you might have a point. Until then, the law of the land says that you’re wrong.

deasys

If you are an investor, doesn?t it worry you a little bit that some little piss ant company can drag this affair out for a year or two until there is positive and permanent resolution in Apple?s favor?

Don’t be naive, Bosco: A pissant company could not drag out the legal proceedings as long as this one. There were anonymous deep pockets and a rich, glory-seeking young attorney involved who perhaps thought doing this pro bono would serve to further his desire to make a name for himself. I’m glad to see that back-firing…

Does anyone know where I can buy a Kiwi camera?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

If anything ?the market? seems to be going toward hardware tied to software. Smart phones, game consoles, etc are increasingly less and less user customizable.

A very fair point. Markets, however, are defined by both/all sides of the equation. It’s not just what manufacturers make, but what customers buy, and how customers use what they buy.

A good Egyptologist doesn’t just focus on King Tut, just like a good observer of the marketplace around Apple doesn’t just focus on what Apple makes and how it intends customers to use its creations. You know, I think I will just start referring to people who insist on take it Apple’s way or leave it as “King Tut fans”. @Joe Anonymous, you are the first member of the King Tut Fanclub on TMO. Enjoy the honor.

zewazir

Such typical engineer thinking? ?either this or that?. The problem with such dichotomies is when there is indeed a third option (or additional options), as evidenced by a whole bunch of people exercising it (or them). In this case, Hackintosher, Psystar, Psystar customers.

Yes, there is always that third option: steal what you desire but do not want to pay for. (Or buy what you desire from a thief because they have a lower overhead and can sell it to you cheaper.)

I do not object to the idea of breaking a law when the purpose is to point out a social injustice. However, stealing the property of someone else then turning around and using that theft to make a profit is hardly a matter of protesting social injustice. Psystar is stealing Mac OS copies and making a profit from that.  If it were anything other than intellectual property the owners of PsyStar would be in jail for felony theft and sale of stolen property.

Joe Anonymous

A good Egyptologist doesn?t just focus on King Tut, just like a good observer of the marketplace around Apple doesn?t just focus on what Apple makes and how it intends customers to use its creations. You know, I think I will just start referring to people who insist on take it Apple?s way or leave it as ?King Tut fans?. @Joe Anonymous, you are the first member of the King Tut Fanclub on TMO. Enjoy the honor.

It’s interesting how the Apple bashers are the ones who think that name calling is an argument. It is clear that you don’t have any rational arguments, so you resort to silly things like this.

zewazir

A very fair point. Markets, however, are defined by both/all sides of the equation. It?s not just what manufacturers make, but what customers buy, and how customers use what they buy.

Yes, a market is defined by what customer’s are willing to purchase, what they desire to purchase, and how much they are willing to spend for a given item, coupled with what industry can invent, manufacture, and sell for a given price.

But a company is in no way obliged to respond to the demands of any given market request.  Apple is selling computers. They sell other things, too, but let’s look at computers. Apple wrote and copyrighted the OS X operating system as a feature for their computers to make them more attractive in the overall personal computer market. Being Apple’s market share has been growing since the inception of OS X, then it is a highly successful merge between customer desires (a capable and easy to use personal computer) and a product.

Now just because there are a bunch of people who are wanting the advantages of OS X, but do not want to pay Apple’s price for a computer with OS X in no way means Apple is obliged to bring their prices down, or sell their intellectual property to another company that can undercut their price structure.

Apple makes what is obviously a very desirable product. If it were not desirable, people wouldn’t be buying it, let alone stealing it. Apple has set a certain price strcture for said product. Most people who desire the product pay the price and are, for the most part, happy with the transaction.  A select few have determined that the product is worth obtaining, but in their world of egocentric entitlement, don’t want to pay Apple’s price for it, so they are willing to steal what they want from Apple to get their way. Along comes a company that does the stealing and makes a profit from reselling their stolen property. And you cheer them on because you do not like the way Apple prices their product.

Imagining that customer desire for a specific product (or in this case, for a lower price on a specific product) somehow places a burden on the market to meet that desire is a prime example of modern entitlement thinking.  You want something, so somehow you are entitled to it.  Sorry, the world does not work that way.

geoduck

There is a market for fake Rolex watches too, but that does not make it right to produce and sell them.

Voice

That is spurious logic.

The case is and always was about ?Mac OS X?. At the time of Psystar?s discovery request, 10.6 was not a commercial product and Apple objected to the discovery request on that basis. It?s entirely reasonable to argue that there?s no reason to do discovery on a beta which might never see the light of day.

The judge?s order specifically states that Psystar?s use of Mac OS X (without any reference to version numbers) is illegal. It would be almost unimaginable that it wouldn?t apply to all versions. But if, for some bizarre reason, the court says it applies only to 10.5, it would not be that hard to add 10.6 in a follow-up filing. Since this one was settled by summary judgment, the court would simply have to determine if the facts were essentially the same (and they are) before making a ruling on 10.6.

Not spurious logic at all.

Psystar, from the beginning wanted 10.6 included, and as such submitted discovery requests for pertinent information relating to 10.6.

Apple, in documents submitted under penalty of perjury, said their suit had nothing to do with 10.6, and on those grounds refused to produce the requested discovery.

Because the judge agreed with Apple, and restricted the case to Psystar’s actions with respect to 10.5, the judge’s later rulings which only reference OS X in general, *CANNOT* be read to include 10.6.  It was specifically determined to be a separate concern, not at issue in this case.

At this point, Apple has changed their minds, and wants to bring 10.6 back into *this* case, because Psystar started another action (in Florida) to specifically address 10.6.  Psystar did this because this case specifically excluded 10.6 at *APPLE’s* insistence.

You don’t get to argue in a court of law that something is irrelevant to a case, and then, later, after discovery is complete, insist that it be included.  (At least not without reopening discovery.)

gnasher729

Psystar, from the beginning wanted 10.6 included, and as such submitted discovery requests for pertinent information relating to 10.6.

That is not the truth, and cannot possibly be the truth.

When Apple filed suit against Psystar, there was no MacOS X 10.6. Around the time when 10.6 came close to being released, Psystar did several things: They made loud noises saying that information that was sealed in court would be released by Psystar when the court case was over (in comments made by the brothers running Psystar, and this would of course be completely illegal). Simultaneously Psystar asked for information how Apple’s copy protection worked on 10.6, _and_ they also tried to get that information legally unsealed. They asked for this information _before_ 10.6 shipped. Now obviously Apple couldn’t sue them for illegally copying 10.6 _before_ Psystar did it.

So you are expecting Apple to read the criminal’s minds and guess what is the next thing they will be doing illegally?

B9robot

Since the license for Snow Leopard is exactly as it is for any other version of OSX the outcome should be the same.
Bye, bye, Psystar scum!!!!

Log-in to comment