Apple files suit against Psystar for copyright infringement, mellow-harshing
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted July 15th 2008 11:54AM
posted July 15th 2008 11:54AM
Read - Confirmed: Apple files suit against Psystar
Read - Apple goes after clone maker Psystar
[Thanks, ginger.al]
What took them so long?
My guess is Apple's team building a solid case based on past rulings, the law, and their EULA's. They wanted to make sure they could get Psystar shutdown.
Will be interesting to see what happens.
They've been looking for a "yes-man" lawyer for months, I guess they finally found one. Tens of million dollars from now, they'll wish they'd listened to the first dozen lawyers who told them not to risk it.
Honestly, it's because they knew the story couldn't get a single post in Engadget until a few days after the iPhone 3G stories die down....
Well with this much time passed, maybe Psystar's lawyers have a shot. If they are good enough, maybe they all won't end up sharing a prison cell with Hans Reiser.
++ w/ Anthony
There would have been nothing worse if Apple had jumped the gun and lost in court..The wanted to be sure to have all their ducks in a row before they ended these guys.
Is anyone surprised?
I just hope the Hammer of Steve doesn't come down on my OSX86-ing ass next.
Is anyone surprised?
I just hope the Hammer of Steve doesn't come down on my OSX86-ing ass next.
damn you comment system!
damn you comment system!
how did you screw this up twice in a row!?
steve hammer will definitely crush you now for sure... he'll get it right the first time just to teach you a lesson! =)
now beg for mercy.
And thus ends the (not so) great retail Mac clone experiment from Psystar.
I only hope this Psystar shill factory hasn't compromised the entire community of developers who worked on the OSx86 project. Seems to me Apple will move to lockdown it's hardware/software combination better.
Hopefully the court rules that an artificial hardware lockin is illegal, as are shrink-wrap licenses.
It probably won't get to court. Psystar will settle to avoid having its few employees' lives ruined with years of litigation, and Apple's unfair end-user licenses will remain unchallenged.
This lawsuit is pure b/s. Why is Apple allowed to get away with putting OSX only on Apple PCs? If Microsoft did this they would be slapped with millions (and probably billions by the EU) in fines and anti competitive fees.
Also, why is Apple allowed to bundle iTunes, Quicktime, and Safari with OSX when Microsoft gets fined for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows? I hate IE as much as everyone else, but the things Apple gets away with is sickening.
I still don't see why Apple sues over this. If anything, I hope the judge tosses the case out of court, then slaps Apple with an anti-trust suit.
Unbelievable that they can get away with stifling competition merely by refusing to license other manufacturers to put an OS on their system.
I hate Macs, but jesus, if Microsoft indeed stopped giving other manufacturers the rights to sell computers with Windows on it, their company would be buried in billion-dollar anti-trust lawsuits...
To those comparing Apple to Microsoft and wondering why Apple isn't treated the same way - 10% of the market does not a monopoly make. At some point Apple will be forced to play more nicely - but until then, they'll take every advantage.
Florida, eh? If they hurry they can get Jack Thompson to defend them before he gets disbarred.
WOW, it took them this long to sue someone who wants to sell more apple products?! I am surprised.
They aren't Apple products...
@ Catsceo
Yes, they are apple products. I'm pretty sure they are using real copies of OS X (just not on apple machines). If not, they would be in deeper shit than they are already in.
Anyone else hoping this case more or less backfires on Apple and shows that they are every bit anti-competitive as MS is?
No. I don't want OSX on a Dell with alot of those silly buttons and shiz. Let Apple do what it has to do. I just hope for the best for both parties and maybe, just maybe they can come to an amicable agreement without having to make all of this draw out in court too long.
Was that in any question? I'd say Apple are much worse about releasing information then MS are, and MS got slapped with a billion Euro fine for it.
And as for the article, this Mac lovers is why you'll never become popular, until Apple takes the finger out and allows you to use OSX on regular hardware and not their inflated rubbish.
How is Apple anticompetitive? No really, give me an example. And please keep in mind that it's not illegal for Apple to only allow their software to run on their hardware. They own both, it's entirely their choice. Think about that real hard, and then tell me how Apple is being anticompetitive.
Microsoft got slapped for actually being anticompetitive, because they were preventing competition in the marketplace. Apple doesn't have that problem because they own their software and hardware. How is Apple preventing you from using PCs or Windows?
@Skry
The thing is, no one really cares. You'd be amazed how often I manage to sleep without the worry of whether the Mac is popular. For some odd reason people seem to think Mac owners have some sort of inferiority complex. Odd. Besides, the Mac is doing quite nicely as it is, thanks, which is more than can be said for most things these days.
@ Zak
Please leave your rampant fan-boism at the door. Since you aren't a lawyer (or at least I'm assuming from your ignorant post), please don't speak about things you don't understand
Their "inflated rubbish" runs better than most other hardware on the market, and comes with the best warranty service in the United States according to Consumer's Reports, PC World, and pretty much every other legitimate industry watchdog.
OS X on a Dell is like lipstick on a pig.
Mikey, please show me where I'm wrong rather than just telling me I'm wrong without any explanation. Prove that I don't understand what I'm talking about.
@ Zak
Stop saying "Apple owns the hardware and software." That makes no sense. Apple's anticompetative behavior only deals with the software. Once they sell the software, their IP rights in it go "poof" with respect to the piece of software sold (i.e .the actual copy sold) (read the recent Supreme Court decision Intel v. Quanta regarding similar limitations in a patent license that the court said "No" to). Since their IP rights in the copy sold are no longer in force, Apple is being anticompetative by suing Pyster over the alleged breach of the agreement. There's your anticomptative behavior.
Of course, you are a raving fan-boi, so it doesn't matter what I say. Just stick to believing whatever the Apple party line tells you and not thinking for yourself... that seems to be your forte.
Mikey, you don't read too good, do you? Here's a direct quote:
"violations against its shrink wrap license, trademarks, and copyright infringement."
Trademarks and copyright infringement. THAT is what Apple is suing Psystar over. Are you a little clearer on that now? But please do insult me some more, because that makes you look smarter. Calling me a fanboy when you can't even read... that's classic.
@ Zak
"Mikey, you don't read too good, do you?" (and I read well, not good)
Um, just because that is what Apple sued them over doesn't mean they have an actual claim. Of course that's what they sued for... that's all they have to sue on. My response had to do with the doctrine of exhaustion, which is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement. It goes like this: If you have IP protection (in this case a copyright) on an article (in this case, a piece of software), once you sell the article, you no longer can control the article using the IP protection. Apple sells the software, thus their protection goes bye-bye.
Why do you think I brought up this defense to a copyright action... because this is a copyright action. (The trademark claim is a joke because Psystar was selling under its own trademark, and any mention of Apple marks with respect to a product made it clear that the product was not Psystar's)
But way to respond to my legal argument instead of resorting to insults about my reading (although you didn't point out any problem with my reading)
"But please do insult me some more, because that makes you look smarter"
I wasn't insulting you... but I certainly wouldn't have to insult you to look smarter than you... I would just have to let you speak (THAT was an insult... now we're clear).
And all I said originally is that you clearly aren't an attorney, and if you are, you clearly aren't an IP attorney. That's not an insult, it's just the truth. If I'm wrong, then God help your clients.
@Mikey
Err... Apple don't sell software, and neither do any other company I know of.
Direct from the EULA:
"The software (including the Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in read only memory, or on any other media or in any other form (collectively, the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you."
Mind you, EULAs aren't great at the best of times. For example, see
http://www.robservatory.com/?p=268
(read the comments – they're quite interesting, and thankfully not as nasty as some of the ones on this page.)
[...]
True, Apple and other software companies argue that they don't "sell" the software, they license it. But, they do sell a copy of the software. Perhaps I wasn't precise enough with my language, but my point is, with respect to the copy of the software that is purchased, the copyright rights are exhausted no matter what people waiving an EULA want you to think.
In this case, nothing will probably come of this becuase Psystar most definitely doesn't have the money to take on the deep pockets of Apple, and will settle very quickly. It's just a shame that interesting legal issues like the validity and reach of Apple's EULA won't get tested in court because the big, bad corporation plaintiff can bury the defendant in discovery requests and bleed them dry.
Summary: we need a lawyer.
Zak, I just reread your first comment... it doesn't seem to follow on at all. but maybe that's just my ignorance.
I really hope Shyam D isn't getting emails for every comment...
Mikey - We certainly are full of ourselves today, aren't we? You really didn't think you were insulting me? Let me refresh your memory.
"you are a raving fan-boi"
Ring any bells? How about this: You are a pompous ass. But that's not an insult, at least using your logic.
As to the topic, everything you're saying is an assumption. You're assuming Apple doesn't have an actual claim. For example, were you aware that Psystar was calling their computer OpenMac for a while? That is a clear trademark violation. Are you sure Apple isn't suing them for that? And can you prove it?
How about backing up your theories with some proof? Or, you know, just insult me some more. That's always a good way to argue your case. I'm not a lawyer, and I hope you're not either, if this is how you argue cases.
Heh KA, it's OK. Gmail groups them.
For people touting the EULA as legal doctrine, it's not. A contract is legally protected by Law. That does not make it the Law. Thus if brought up in a court of Law, it has to be found to be abiding by the Law. That means that just because the EULA says so, doesn't mean it's legal.
Zak, It is not harder to make software, including browsers, media player, etc. for OS X then Windows. Considering the fact that MS is still currently under fire for Anti-Competitive practices in these main areas, I don't see why Apple shouldn't be as well. I'm not referring to past practices. In fact, MS has opened up a lot of information and documentation, and MSDN provides a level of documentation far beyond what Apple provides.
Might I also remind you, that one of the biggies touted in the past Anti-Trust cases was the fact that IE and Windows Media were heavily integrated into Windows, and that 3rd party software could not achieve a similar level of integration. Currently, a similar case occurs with Apple's OS X. Third Party Media Players have to jump hoops to even near the same level of integration with OS X that iTunes does, let alone Third Party Media Stores. Apple is using one area of market technology to help leverage their dominance in another, which one could easily argue is true in the Media Store market. MS did the same thing, albeit the market they were scoping out provided no real monetary benefit.
All I'm saying, is that two companies are beating treated differently under the same law for the same acts.
@ Skry
Great idea! Inflatable Macs! You could fill it with helium to get is out of the way when you're not using it, or with air to make it nice and light when you carry it around... or deflate it completely to stash it away in a small cupboard...
Maybe not.
Zak, I'm sorry your feelings were hurt, I didn't realize we weren't all adults here. But I hate to point out the obvious, but you are a raving fan boi.
Of course everything I was writing was an assumption. Since I'm not Apple's lawyers, I couldn't possibly know what their theories are. If I did, I would get disbarred for talking about them on this blog. But, that being said, from what I know of the case and the law Apple's claim is much weaker than you think it is. It's all academic, however, because Psystar will fold up shop and none of this will ever get to an actual decision.
@ Mikey
Zak's actually right on this one. He's still an immature asshat with no awareness of bias or socially acceptable interweb conduct, but his argument is legit (unintentionally, I'm sure).
Apple owns all Apple/Mac products, much like how Nintendo owns all nintendo products. Sony is not allowed to port DS software to the PSP. It's not anti-trust, because Nintendo is doing nothing to inhibit competition in the portable gaming industry, and is only keeping tighter control of its product. Anyone is free to make and sell their own dual-screened gaming portable, but only Nintendo can make Gameboy DSs and have full ownership of the software they write.
Macs and PCs cannot be compared as such, since the former refers to a specific line of computing devices from a certain company, while the latter describes the aggregate of personal computing machines from several companies.
The reason that Microsoft was sued for integrating IE and WMP so deeply was NOT because removing and replacing the programs was difficult, but because MS makes a good deal of money off licensing developers to make apps for Windows. If Microsoft charges companies for developing rights and does something that affects the market for 3rd party apps, then some dirtbags from the EU can make a BS argument in front of a biased judge that would ultimately benefit European-based companies and harm the American-based Microsoft (it should be abundantly clear, I felt that Microsoft was gypted; that's why the US Supreme Court had never even considered putting Microsoft on trial).
Regardless of who's right or wrong, Zak is still a piece of shit for whom I have no respect. Mikey: it's ok; sometimes you beat the favorite and other times you lose to the long shot.
http://www.psystar.com is now done. Guess they're definitely not gonna want to sell any more Mac clones.
It sucks being sued. I hope someone like the EFF can represent them for free.
It's back up! :)
I just got 10.5.3 running my Shuttle XPC. Love it! I own a real version of 10.5.3, so it's not like I stole the software.. I may even Spring for one of those cool Bluetooth keyboards.
I'm a little surprised Apple is suing, I was under the impression their EULA wasn't as Air tight as they thought it was. I really hope they don't go after the rest of the 86 project. I mean, no one is selling anything... or even trying to compete with Apple in anyway. We just want to run their OS one something other than their hardware.
Right you didn't steal the software but you broke the user agreement. However, if you look at what Apple is actually suing Psystar for, it's:
"shrink wrap license, trademarks, and copyright infringement"
Not breakage of the user agreement. It sounds like Apple has some pretty solid ground to stand on here, not just the EULA.
Who cares if he broke the User Agreement? Apple needs to be held to the same standards as everyone else. Fuck them and their policies.
Yeah, that made no sense. Which standards are you referring to, exactly?
THE standards. Haven't you heard of them?
how long before apple keeping everything on lock down becomes an anti-trust issue?
Do you even know what anti-trust means? Apple makes the hardware and the software. What antitrust could there possibly be? Are they going to sue themselves? Do you think it's possible for Apple to have a monopoly on their own products? Think about it.