Apple files suit against Psystar for copyright infringement, mellow-harshing
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Jul 15th 2008 11:54AM
posted Jul 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.
ummm...?
Yes. I know what anti-trust means.
How long before apples practices of locking everything up, and not allowing competition in the market place, comes to an end?
Think about it. Microsoft could have stopped people from loading a different internet browser into their software... and people would have freaked. Now, lets look at the Apple scenario. They make the hardware AND the software.
I can go into a store and purchase the software. I want to load it on a NON-apple machine. BUT, apple says I cannot do this. ALSO, there is no competition in the market place for machines that run OSX that are NOT made by apple. This is a form of a monopoly. AKA, an anti-trust issue.
Please inform me where I have missed something.
"How long before apples practices of locking everything up, and not allowing competition in the market place, comes to an end?"
You mean standard business practice for all hardware manufacturers? Probably NEVER.
Uh, yeah. You missed quite a bit. I'll ask you again, and this time see if you can answer: Do you think it's possible for Apple to have a monopoly on their own products?
How is Apple not allowing competition in the marketplace? Is Apple not allowing people to build PCs and run Windows? Is Apple not allowing people to run Windows on Macs? Explain in detail how Apple is disallowing competition in the marketplace.
And let's be very clear about something: If this marketplace you're referring to is the Macintosh marketplace, there can be no such thing as antitrust. Apple OWNS the Macintosh. Name, brand, hardware, software, all of it. You cannot have a monopoly on something you own.
It's purely Apple's choice to allow you to install their software on non-Mac machines or not. That's not even close to being anti-competitive. It is a closed ecosystem, but that's not illegal or anticompetitive. At all. You may not like it, but that's irrelevant.
MS got dinged for antitrust because they hooked IE into the core OS, making it impossible to remove IE and use something else like Firefox without breaking your system. Does Apple prevent you from removing Safari and using whatever the hell you want? No.
Again, and this seems to bear repeating - Apple is under no obligation whatsoever to allow you to run their OS on whatever machine you want. It has nothing to do with antitrust. They own the hardware and the software, and if they choose to dictate that their OS only runs on their hardware, that is entirely their choice to make.
Don't you wish you could ignore the zealots like Zak?
Well now you can, with egnored, the Firefox extension to egnore users on the Engadget comment system.
http://electroburn.org/egnored/
@Zak,
How are they a monopoly? Ok, Macs are a platform as is Linux, and Windows a platform. Can any PC take a machine and install Linux or Windows? With small hardware changes and some drivers, YES. You are a complete moron to not see through Steve Jobs death grip on you. What a tool you must be. If Mac was like Windows and Linux, you could buy the OS, like ANY other computer, and INSTALL it, but no, Mac is money hungry and think they are the rich kids of Beverly Hills 90210. Zak, oh and S. Jobs, GET OVER YOURSELF. Zealots like yourself, Zak, are the reason why practices from Companies like Apple are still tolerated.
You FAIL...
I agree 100 percent.
@Zak
If I put a Corvette engine into a Mustang, should Chevy be able to sue me?
@ Kamokazi
Yes, putting a Corvette motor in a Mustang should result in the death penalty every time. My love for cars aside, you're comparing hardware there... like Intel in PC to Intel in Mac.
Now that we've laid that aside...
When you buy software you buy a license to use it and agree to be bound by it's terms otherwise you won't install it and/or surrender that license.
When you buy a motor or a processor, you're entering into a purchasing contract with usually a warranty and statement of liability/no liability.
Totally different. Totally obvious.
@ShadowKain
It's their operating software. It's their hardware. It's their choice to install it on any other computer. But do they? No. They are constantly selling more Macs each year, which shows that people WILL pay for the Mac, so if you're a company who arguably wants to make money, they'll charge that price. They like their buisness model. It makes money.
By the way, you seem to think that Apple is a money hungry monster. Well guess what: It's a company. Do you know what that means? It tries to take your money away from your wallet! And you know also, I heard that Microsoft also does the same, you know... try to make money. It's pretty amazing you know. Unheard of even. And you call us fanboys.
And... your descendants (should you have any, if not, then good) will contain the failure gene.
Shadowkain - okay you're obviously unclear on the definition of "monopoly". Let's get one thing straight: You cannot have a monopoly on your own products.
You need me to say that again? Pay attention:
YOU CANNOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON YOUR OWN PRODUCTS.
Apple chooses to only allow their OS to run on their hardware. THAT IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Apple owns the hardware and the software. It is completely up to them if they choose to restrict them to each other, and it's completely legal. It's not even close to being an antitrust issue of any kind.
Apple is not preventing competition in the marketplace. Is Apple preventing you from installing Windows on a PC, or buying a PC? Or even installing Windows on a Mac? No. And at 7% marketshare, it's laughable that you are actually suggesting Apple has a monopoly on anything.
Buy a clue please.
Kamokazi - if you put an LS6 into a Mustang and then called the Mustang a Corvette, then yes, Chevy could sue you. Psystar called their computer an "OpenMac" for a while. That's a direct trademark infringement. As I've mentioned before, the Psystar people are pretty stupid.
I really wish that OS X could be legally run on PC hardware. The chances of it happening are insanely slim but i just hate having to to use apple's hardware :( The iMac does everything i need very well but its so locked down, can't upgrade anything but the RAM and cost a big premium for similar spec'd PC hardware.
Love OS X - Hate Mac Hardware.
yeah we need to stop them so it won't draw to much attention to us hackintosh users
@ Zak
Meh, I don't really care about the legality. I just think it's waste of time to go after OSX86 project.
As for Psystar, their stuff sucked, and I kept hearing horror stories, about people trying to buy from them, only to have their money stolen. So I really don't mind them getting shut down by Apple.
But if the debate is about Running Apple's OS on whatever hardware you can make it work on. Well golly, we all know Apple isn't going to support it, if you buy the OS, and realize you are breaking the user agreement, well who gets hurt? Apple still made money on the software, sure they didn't sell a computer, but to be fair, they weren't going to anyways, since I won't pay Apple's prices. Plus they don't even really have an entry level PC anymore, the Mac Mini is close, but it's price went up to $599, I really like it when apple actually had a sub $500 PC.
Atleast this way, they sold some software, and hell I might even buy a Keyboard, so they make another buck that way.
Like Aaonage said,
Love OS X Hate Mac Hardware (in my case, their computers.)
It's never a waste of time to protect your trademarks and copyrights, and that appears to be exactly what Apple is protecting in this lawsuit. Also, Apple isn't going after the OSX86 project. They're going after Psystar specifically, Psystar used the OSX86 project's code without permission (i.e. making a profit from it), so I'm pretty sure the OSX86 guys are happy about this lawsuit too.
It changes nothing regarding people putting OS X on PCs for their own use, all it changes is companies like Psystar making a profit from it.
This lawsuit could set a very important precedent in determining whether or not these sorts of "shrink wrap agreements" are enforceable. Anyone who cares about freedom to use should support Psystar in this.
That horse left the barn a LONG time ago. Shrinkwrap agreement have been long litigated and have been found enforceable for quite some time. There's a whole bunch of precedent on that matter. Especially in California, and the 9th Circuit.
The counsel for Pystar is basically going to have to convince the Judge and/or Jury that all of that precedent doesn't apply to them. Good luck with that.
Also recall that Apple is the one that filed the suit, so they pretty much get their pick of venues, which stacks the deck even more in their favor.
Unfortunately, Will is right (although it is not universal... there are courts that have held against shrink wrap licenses... but surprisingly, software owners never seem to sue there).
There was a recent Supreme Court decision on patent licenses that might give Psystar some hope (Intel v. Quanta). They could also argue that they aren't subject to personal jurisdiction in N.D. Cal., but I'm guessing Apple just had one of its employees buy a Psystar computer and have it shipped there, so that's probably a loser too.
The other issue that you fail to recognize is the obligation of Apple, by virtue of the patents, trademarks, and copyrights they have been granted, to protect their brand through legal means.
If they allow anyone to utilize their intellectual property in a manner inconsistent with its intent, vis-a-vis installing their proprietary operating system on non-proprietary equipment, they run the risk of watering down their brand.
In turn, the watering down of the brand results in loss of revenue which Apple has an obligation to the shareholders, through all legal means, to prevent.
Finally, it's not anti-competitive. They're not disallowing anyone to enter the computer OS/hardware marketplace. They are simply protecting their intellectual property from being used in an unauthorized manner.
A business does not inherently have the right to do as they please with another businesses intellectual property. They are bound to the license agreement like everyone else. Further, Apple does have the right to protect its own intellectual property from uses other than what it is licensed for, ESPECIALLY if it has the potential to hurt their business.
C'mon people, this is just common sense. If you don't have any common sense, take a business law course. This is 101 stuff here. It's not a violation of an individual's basic freedoms.
Wow, you really should have studied for the test before coming to class.
Fozzy... I don't really know what your post has to do with any of the posts in this string, but your statement about "an obligation to protect its IP" only applies to trademarks, because if you fail to protect a trademark, it may lose its distinctiveness in the eyes of the consumer. But, no such obligation applies to patents, copyrights, or rights under a contract like the EULA. You can sit on a patent for 10 years and then sue on it with no repercussions on your rights (except for a possible laches argument depending on your representations during that 10 years).
And there is no such thing as "Business Law," (except possibly as a course in an MBA program). This is IP law and contract law, with the potential for anticompetative/antitrust law as well (at it is potentially anticompetative, because Apple's actions DO prevent potential competitors from entering the market of computers that run Apple's OS).
@ Mikey
FYI... business law is not an MBA course... unless you go to a worthless business school... and its a subcategory of law...
http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/home.shtml - at least the bar association thinks so... but i guess you supercede them with your uninformed posts. you're doing good so far looking foolish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Business_law - oh look... more evidence of your stupidity... gasp! it's everywhere!
C'mon, Fozzy Bear shouldn't have to tell you this!
oh, and if you go to a non-hack school, it's a required course in a lot of undergrad business programs... and it focuses heavily on contracts, patents, copyrights, trademarks, and tort law.
and yes, you can sit on a patent and sue years later... but if everyone else and their mom 'infringed' on it and you do nothing... you don't have a case case for it just like with a trademark... which, the Mac OS is trademarked... every version of it. so i guess they should do what they're doing. it applies to in many cases beyond trademarks.
and what apple is doing is still... not... anti-competitive...
but, i guess you'll say something smart in return and punch your credibility in the face again... you've done it all day on this post.
Fozzy... your first link is to a section of the ABA, not a definition of a discipline of law. Your second link is to Wikipedia, which is clearly *the* authority on all things that define the law (sarcasm).
The term "business law" is just a short hand for all the legal theories that a business may encounter (even your Wikipedia page makes that clear). When you sue someone, there is no claim for "a violation of business law," you sue them for breach of contract or some other legal discipline. That is all I meant.
"and yes, you can sit on a patent and sue years later... but if everyone else and their mom 'infringed' on it and you do nothing... you don't have a case case for it just like with a trademark"
This is not true. If you have a patent, and sit on it doing absolutely nothing for 10 years while the entire industry adopts it, you absolutely can sue for patent infringement and your claim will be completely in tack (there's even a term for this... the "submarine patent.") It may be dickish, but it is still a valid claim, and if the defendant infringes, they are liable.
It makes sense for a trademark claim to require this, since the purpose of a trademark is to allow a party to protect the distinctiveness of its mark, and if the mark owner doesn't protect the mark when it becomes widely adopted, then the mark no longer signifies the product of the original owner. But, a patent is an exclusive protection of the invention, and whether the patent owner chooses to enforce it our not will not diminish the usefulness of the invention.
@ Zak,
You have a lot of similaritiesto the recently deceased clak. you are not related are you ? same level of caustic wit, sauteed with an unashamed love of Apple, but justified by the provision of reasoning.
clak is bak as zak ?
too good to be true. goodbye clak, welcome back zak.
Yeah, let me know when you can come up with a cohesive argument against anything I've said.
Actually I believe Zak was around before clak... so no. Besides, the writing style is way different. Zak makes more sense, doesn't insult people in every other sentence and doesn't have the quote at the end.
Anti-trust laws don't apply to Apple the same way they do to Microsoft because Apple doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly on anything. They are a tiny percentage of the OS market and a tiny percentage of the PC market.
They will have a hard time proving any kind of trademark infringement, unless they can show consumers are confused and think they are getting an Apple computer when in fact they are just getting a Pystar computer with Apple software installed on it. The copyright case might be stronger. Since Pystar hasn't licensed their software for resale, the code itself is copyrighted and they can enforce their rights under those copyrights.
They obviously have some sort of contractual claims under their shrink wrap license as well. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide.
Seriously, that's the most hysterical part. People think Apple has a monopoly on anything with their, what is it, 7% market share? Oh yeah, that's one hell of a monopoly. The government should shut them down, lol.
"They are a tiny percentage of the OS market and a tiny percentage of the PC market."
And they're still growing in the, eh smartphone world [catching up at least with the basic functionality such as SMS via AIM jeez which I can do for almost 5 years now, threaded sMs, 3G which i have had on SE k610i for some donkey years now, and etc...
Not to mention the iPod market domination.........and all the gears....
so if i were you, I'll rephrase that statement...about Apple and anti-trust laws
Why should he rephrase it? Apple doesn't come anywhere near antitrust anything. At all. Period. If you think they do, please provide some examples.
"Zak @ Jul 15th 2008 1:13PM
Why should he rephrase it? Apple doesn't come anywhere near antitrust anything. At all. Period. If you think they do, please provide some examples."
iPod
Ken - Oh god. How is the iPod a monopoly? Can you not download music from sources other than the iTunes store? Of course you can. Can you put music in other formats on the iPod? Of course you can. The iPod is not preventing competition in the marketplace. Ever heard of the Zune?
Saying the iPod is a monopoly is just as stupid as saying Apple is a monopoly.
Its really stupid calling Psystar a "clone-maker" because just because Apple is a bitch, and doesn't want others to install their OS in non-apple made computers. Because an OS is an OS and it can be installed in most computers, and if someone bypasses intentional restrictions and is able to install mac in a "PC" then how the hell is that called making a clone? Last time I check Psystar did not try to disguise the physical computer case as a mac-look a like computer. I mean look at all the different computers running Windows, nobody is going callin anyone of those computers a "clone". Mainly because MS allows you to install the damn OS in any computer, that is if you buy it. Its should be the same thing with Apple, but its not, O well, that life. Lets go sit in the corner crying about why apple is such a bitch. But at least this company (Psystar) was doing something about it.
So sorry you're being such a crybaby about Apple wanting to maintain a closed ecosystem. My advice to you would be to suck it up and stop whining.
And they're called Mac Clones because they're computers not made by Apple that function like Macs. Microsoft doesn't make PCs so obviously PC aren't clones. That's also why you can install Windows in any PC you want - because Microsoft doesn't make their own computers. Apple does. See the difference? Why should it be the same thing when the situation is completely different?
The only thing Psystar was doing was breaking Apple's user agreement for OS X, making a profit off of the OSX86 team's work without their permission and generally being massive idiots, for which they're being sued now.
In conclusion, cry more.
Zak... Have you ever been laid?
Also, do you wack it to a picture of Jobs?
You can't come up with a counter for anything I've said, so you resort to insults. Yep, that makes you look smarter. Thanks for proving that the Apple haters really aren't the sharpest tools in the drawer. Don't get me wrong though - you are tools.
no... you are right. I am dumb.
I am just thinking some of that anger / energy stored up in you might be resolved by full release.
I am dumb (and a tool), but you are the result of a busted condom.
He's got a handful of comments to his name... all on this entry. Don't waste your fingers on him
What Psystar did by commercially selling OSX on Intel machines was just plain dumb. Psystar even continues to sell the machines on their website.
OSX on Intel machines is not over, but the commercial sales of such machines is. Heck, even Woz said he might be interested tinkering with OSX on such a machine and was considering buying one.
There's no way Apple can win the EULA shrink wrap argument because an "Apple branded computer" has never clearly been defined. Look at the old Safari for Windows EULA, and you'll find the same requirement to run it on an Apple branded computer. LOL. Millions would be in violation!
You're right, but Apple did change that wording in the Safari EULA once it was brought to their attention. It was an oversight on their part.
Zak, there buddy you kinda mentioned what I has stated, if you had taken the time to read. Yea, MS doesn't make computers, so there OS works with just about any computer. Apple wants most, if not all the profit to its self so they both make&manufacture the OS and their computer. Apple is overly controlive so that why they designed their OS to work flawlessly in apple-built computers. But lets not forget that OS's are meant to be run in COMPUTERS, and someone's gotta take the stand.
What stand? If you don't like it, that's really just too damn bad. Apple has no obligation to let you run OS X on any box you want to, and that's something you need to accept.
The fact is, Apple makes money on their hardware, not their software. If you could (legally) install OS X on any computer you wanted and it would work fine with no hacking etc. - would people buy Macs any more? At the very least Apple would sell a lot less Macs. This bring us back to the fact that Apple makes their money on HARDWARE.
So no, Apple will not be letting you run OS X on any machine you want for the forseeable future. Why would they? Is losing massive amounts of money a good way to run a business, you think?
Ugh. Let me repeat what Zak has said
"How can you have a monopoly on your own products?"
Honestly! You seem to have some gunge in your brain stopping you from thinking.
And let's not forget that OSs are meant to run on whatever the manufacturer wants to run it on.
There's nothing "flawless" about Apple's computers. Just go to any Mac users forum and look at the number of complaints and crys for help. However, I'm not saying that their computers are any worse than anyone elses.
@Zak,
"The fact is, Apple makes money on their hardware, not their software. If you could (legally) install OS X on any computer you wanted and it would work fine with no hacking etc. - would people buy Macs any more? At the very least Apple would sell a lot less Macs"
That is the whole damn point you ninny. They billy others into buying both hardware and software because NO ONE CARES ABOUT THEIR HARDWARE. Hey man, did you get that new Nvidia card? Nope, doesn't work on my apple...
FAIL from birth...
You mean you go around to your friends and ask them if they bought the latest Nvidia graphics card? I'm sorry but I don't think you understand why Apple restricts it's OS to it's own hardware
1) Revenue: It makes a hella lot of money off this buisness model. With roughly 7% of the market it is making approximately 25% of what Microsoft makes, while being of some magnitude smaller.
2) Reliability: It's a lot easier to maintain just a few types of hardware than loads and loads of different combinations. Call Apple lazy? Whatever. That's how they roll.
And most people don't actually give a shit about how many gigabytes of RAM there is in it, if it has a 280GTX, a quad core processor with 12mb of L2 cache, or a 15,000rpm hard drive in it.
All they care about is that it doesn't screw up when they want it to work. Most of them never upgrade their computer nor care about your über fast gaming pc. You ask most people on the road about that Nvidia card of yours and they'll have no idea what it is. Ask them if they want to change the motherboard on their computer and again, no response.
Apparently Apple can have a stable operating system while having a nice hardware form factor, which is always nice for the eyes. (I'm basing that on my own experience with Macs, the stability part)
Oh and by the way, your ancestors failed when they were in a primordial soup in some obscure part of the planet - and they passed it on to you :)
Shadowkain, you are mind-bogglingly stupid.
"They billy[sic] others into buying both hardware and software"
Really? Did Apple shake you down in an alleyway and threaten to kill your family if you didn't buy a Mac? As I said before, Apple makes money on selling hardware. Not software. There is no incentive for them to allow other computers to run OS X. None.
Sorry you're having a hard time with that, but that is just too damn bad. It's entirely Apple's prerogative to only allow their OS to run on their hardware. It's not illegal, it's not immoral, it's not wrong in any way. It's their choice. Accept it and get over it.
@Zak
Well done. A reasonable explanation of the issue. For all the statements that "Macs suck" and the like, it's remarkable how people seem to take issue with Apple not allowing other companies to make compatible hardware and licensing the OS to run on them. This is rapidly followed by a complete inability to understand why it was Microsoft got themselves into hot water such that they think Apple is doing the same.
This, if nothing else, should be an interesting test of the End-User License Agreement. The EULA for OS X is pretty clear, and Pystar is clearly in breach of that, but whether the EULA is legally enforceable is debatable. If Apple wins then that'll be it for clones for good (aside from maybe ones banged out in China or other locations with dubious support for copyright law). However, if they lose then the floodgates may well open...
I remember not too long ago (ok, maybe it was a while back) when all PCs not made by IBM were called IBM clones.
I'd laugh if Apple lost this law suit against Psystar because of anti-competitive practices. LOL!
Which anticompetitive practices would those be? Can you be specific?