Apple's lawsuit against Psystar examined
By Nilay Patel 
posted Jul 16th 2008 3:46PM
posted Jul 16th 2008 3:46PM
PS. - Somewhat charmingly, we're quoted in the factual allegations section as calling the Psystar machine we reviewed "crazy loud" -- aww, you shouldn't have, guys. Maybe you want to throw in a citation next time, though? Just a thought.
- Copyright infringement: According to Apple, Psystar modified and redistributed OS X without a license, so straight copyright law applies. This is probably a winning argument -- even if the EULA (which forbids modification and redistribution) is held invalid, redistributing a modified copyrighted work is a big no-no.
- Contributory and induced copyright infringement: As we pointed out a while back, by building a business model around the knowing copyright infringement of its customers, Psystar is probably liable for contributory copyright infringement -- this is the same principle that MGM v. Grokster was decided upon back in 2005.
- Breach of contract: This is the EULA violation claim. Contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, EULAs in general have been tested in courts many times and have been held enforceable in several states, including Florida, where Psystar is located. In addition, EULAs are currently valid in the federal Ninth circuit, where Apple's brought suit. It's true that there are some cases holding that EULAs are unenforceable and the Apple's Leopard EULA has never been litigated specifically, but this claim isn't nearly as shaky as it's been made out to be -- it's just not a big money-winner like a copyright claim.
- Inducing breach of contract: Apple says Psystar "advised, encouraged, and assisted others" in violating the EULA. Considering that's the heart of Psystar's business, we'd say this one lives and dies with the main EULA claim.
- Trademark infringement: Apple has registered trademarks on both "Mac OS" and "Leopard," and it says that Psystar infringed those marks when it advertised that the Open Computer could run "Mac OS Leopard" in a way that made it seem like it was an official product. We're not convinced that this is the strongest claim -- Psystar was basically marketing itself on defiance of Apple, not any kind of official support -- but we can see how a court would buy it, especially since Apple makes a big deal of how Psystar's subpar machines were causing harm to the OS X brand.
- Trade dress infringement: This one is pretty interesting, actually -- Apple says that the Mac OS X user interface is well known to consumers and has become associated with Apple to the point where it is protectable trade dress -- and that Psystar infringed on Apple's trade dress rights when it shipped Open Computers that contained OS X. It's around this point where you get the sense that Apple's going for the jugular -- there's no way that any damages Apple gets from Psystar are going to cover the additional cost of litigating a claim like this.
- Trademark dilution: Dilution is a special trademark protection reserved for "famous" brands -- Apple undoubtedly qualifies. It's a complicated doctrine, but basically Apple says that by using its trademarks, Psystar caused damage to its brand.
- State unfair competition: Apple says Psystar violated California law by infringing its copyrighted works, specifically the California Business and Professions Code. We're not up on our California law -- any readers want to flesh this out for us? We'd say it's just a failsafe claim to at least get an injunction in case everything else gets thrown out.
- Common law unfair competition: This is basically the same as the state unfair competition claim, only based on a different set of doctrines.
[Special thanks to Matt Gavronski of Michael Best & Friedrich in Chicago for his help with this post]
Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer and a rockstar, but he's not your lawyer, and none of this is legal advice or analysis.
Isn't there something that Psystar was using as an excuse? Like a monopoly or something that Apple had on its software and that it made it impossible to run Mac software without buying hardware from Apple? Can someone enlighten me?
"For its part, Psystar has been saying all along that Apple's refusal to allow OS X to run on non-Apple hardware is a violation of antitrust laws and that it's got a "team" of lawyers at the ready, so it should be interesting to see how this all plays out."
I read that somewhere as well. Problem is, there IS no actual monopoly, unless there's a vital function in OS X that can't be had in any number of Linux distros and Windows versions. Compound this with the fact that OS X only consumes
wow I entered without finishing...
*
Damn, steve job never stops working... he has so much on his plate... but it pays off
It sure does, I would kill for a $1 salary!
ha... but i'd kill for the stock options... you can keep your dollar.
If psystar gets away with this am buying copies of windows XP and i'll change the xp to XP1 and just start reselling them for more money, heck is almost the same thing, i might hire someone to edit the code to bypass the required software key, so it could run on any machine
I hope Psystar have a good legal team. The antitrust thing is interesting though - whether they can turn it to their advantage remains to be seen.
Um, put it this way... when Apple legal and the courts are done with them, Psystar won't be able to afford an 'Open Computer'.
"Disclaimer: Nilay's a lawyer and a rockstar, but he's not your lawyer, and none of this is legal advice or analysis."
Too much Guitar Hero Nilay?
Haha just kidding, gotta love your disclaimers.
Not necessarily just guitar hero (though that probably has *something* to do with it). Nilay is actually a guitarist in The Heaven Seventies ( http://h70s.com/ )
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!
Did not know. Thanks.
Darn. I just ordered a dozen Psystars... what was I thinking?!
Brain I just read your comment below and all I have to say is that you are an IDIOT.
Um... oh kay. Right. Split personality, Brian(!)?
Psystar absolutely damages the Apple brand by using their OS on non-Apple machines. Apple has a reputation of a great user experience between hardware and software, and has to maintain that reputation by controlling what OSX is installed on.
The copyright infringement is easy. Psystar is done.
This reputation stuff aside, I think that it's simply hacking and redistributing this hack for profit that should really kill Psystar. As much as people like to root for the little guy, these people really should've known better. While the sealed genuine copies are officially licensed for the end user, the hacked duplicates preloaded into the machines are clearly not.
i don't see why coffee is low ranked, he didn't say anything that's not obviously true.. I mean rooting for the little guy is great, but not when the little guy is a criminal.
That's a bit extreme, don't you think?
I'd like to err on the side of free markets in this instance because there's clearly a void in Apple's lineup of computers for a headless mid-range tower. If Apple won't develop a machine with those specs than someone else out there should be allowed to. I don't think the Apple brand will be less respected because clones are falling apart, it just teaches those who desire quality to purchase quality, thats all.
With that being said...Psystar is about to get sodomized by Apple's legal team.
justin,
They could've sold a machine "optimized for OSX", or something to that effect, probably without any action by Apple. When they violate EULA and start playing as an Apple source without license, that's where they crossed the legal line (my opinion).
It doesn't matter if a company manufactures the exact product you want - you can't just take their IP and resell it with that kind of justification. If they don't sell what you want, buy something else, or modify it yourself. When you resell the package commercially, it reflects on the original manufacturer when it ceases to function.
I would say that if anything, Pystar's systems build the Apple brand, as in comparison, the Apple hardware is much higher quality...
@ Justin,
The point here is that the decision to offer a headless midrange mac is Apple's to make. Just because there is demand for a product, doesn't give just anyone the right to offer it in violation of IP law.
"great user experience between hardware and software" What are you talking about? One-button mouse? What else is there that separates Macs from other computers hardware-wise? Are you really sure that Psystar does not enhance this experience?
there are always two camps on this:
a) psystar is a bunch of idiots who deserve what's coming for blatant disregard and rampant violation of U.S. copyright law...
and
b) i think they should be allowed to violate whatever law they want because apple doesn't do things exactly the way i think they should...
i'm an 'a' stuck in a world full of 'b's... and i totally get tired of their lack of thought. it's asinine to think that if they were the ones creating the product being infringed upon that they'd be like 'oh yeah, that's cool, anarchy, rock on dude'... idiots.
if apple doesn't make a mid-size tower for you... go buy something else... they don't have to make what you want and you don't have to buy their product...
there is also no 'free-market' argument that applies here... because it already is a free-market... apple sells computers... you buy computers... the government doesn't regulate the business transaction or dictate who can buy and who can sell (i'm not talking about business laws governing the corporation, just the uniform commercial code). that argument is completely irrelevant.
finally, the little guy can sell computers and an OS... but he can't infringe upon the copyrights/trademarks of one companies to the benefit of himself and/or to the detriment of the other company.
it's like hearing a bunch of 12 year olds whine because they can't have their way... it's like stealing and it is still wrong, nut jobs, whether you feel like it should be or not!
CRUSH THEM, APPLE! PROTECT YOUR BRAND!
@justin
I'd like to err on the side of free markets in this instance because there's clearly a void in Apple's lineup of computers for a headless mid-range tower. If Apple won't develop a machine with those specs than someone else out there should be allowed to.
No one is preventing them from selling headless mid-range towers. You can find those all over in fact. What they aren't (and shouldn't and won't) be allowed to do is to sell a mid range tower with MacOS X. I'd love a cheaper PS3, but just because Sony doesn't make one doesn't give someone else the right to do so. Toyota doesn't sell a hybrid sports car, doesn't mean someone can plop a Toyota Hybrid motor in a sports car and start selling it.
Apple makes a product that is hardware + software. Other people also make products that are hardware + software. Anyone is free to sell that type of product in fact. Or they can just sell hardware. Or just software. Or bananas. But its wrong to take part of someone else product without their permission, pack it in with your own product and sell it. You want to hack your OWN machine to run OS X? Great, more power to ya. But to sell that to people? Nope, sorry, thats a lawsuit (and an easily winnable one at that)
The guts of Apple branded computers are nearly identical to the guts of Psystar branded computers. There's nothing magical or technically superior about Apple branded computers.
The only thing this shows is just how over-priced Apple branded computers are and how anti-competitive Apple is for not wanting to face any competition.
Their EULA is a joke. Imagine if the DVD's you bought from Sony had an EULA that said you could only play their DVD's on a Sony DVD player. I don't see this as being any different.
" But its wrong to take part of someone else product without their permission, pack it in with your own product and sell it."
Every lemonade stand is a felony crime ring under your legal brilliance. Seriously, coudl you make a more-sweeping statement without having a clue?
I didn't think so.
Wow... everyone hates everyone...
Congratulations to those people who aren't low ranked.
To LarryLarryLarry
Well I guess that depends, doesn't it? Did the stand operators make the lemonade directly from fresh lemons, water and sugar? Did they utilize a lemonade mix with artificial sweetener ala crystal light? Probably fine in either of those cases. Now did they buy Minute Maid lemonade and sell it as such? If so, did they purchase it as a reseller? Still.. probably okay.
Now did they buy Minute Maid lemonade, mix it with tap water and a little extra sugar, and sell it as Minute Maid brand lemonade? That might get them shut down.... but maybe they started a whole factory putting this ripped off Minute Maid into their own bottles with the Minute Maid logo on them, but their own crappy kid design? And use crappier material for the bottles creating a worse end user experience? And did they start to sell their "Minute Maid" for half the price of real Minute Maid across the whole country? And claim that they're justified in doing it because Minute Maid is monopolistic by putting its particular mixture of lemon, sweeteners and water only into its own bottles and because there is a market demand for cheap, watered down Minute Maid?
@ LarryLarryLarry
Every lemonade stand is a felony crime ring under your legal brilliance. Seriously, coudl you make a more-sweeping statement without having a clue?
I didn't think so.
Apparently you can, since you just did. Under your doctrine Sony could copy the xbox OS and sell its own version, Toyota could sell cars using Honda motors, Burger King could start selling McDonald's french fries, and whatever product you make your living selling I could just start selling instead without your permission. What a great idea!
Actually yes lemonade stands COULD be prosecuted and shut down, just because no one does for various reasons (bad press, no significant loss of assets, etc.) doesn't mean its not still technically against the law.
Seriously I hope you haven't actually gone to law school or anything, cause if you have and this is what you learned, you really should demand your money back.
if Pystar can convince the judge that this is in violation of anti trust laws then nearly all of this will be thrown out...cant wait to see how this one plays out...or pays out
it's hard to convince a judge that Company A's product should be sold the way Company B wants it sold when Company B has no rights to Company A's product except as an unmodified reseller... which isn't even a right.
I like the one about 'unfair competition'
Reminds me of the time when apple bought a ton of reduced flash chips for their ipods while smaller companys got fucked in the ass. Hypocrites.
It would only be hypocrisy if Apple was using those smaller companies' IP to advance itself to their detriment.
Kaiser... so you're saying that it is a hypocrisy then
Apple is NOT a nice company. They do all sorts of horrible corporate things, even the things they love to point fingers at that others do.
I think it is amazing that Apple has created a culture and fan base that becomes more and more extreme. Just the other day I heard a sales guy in an Apple store tell a customer flat outright lies regarding speed, wireless technology, and some other minor details to a perspective customer. He actually said that you won't find built-in webcams in a PC laptop as a selling point.
Of course Apple has to shut down something like this. They have a fan base that will overlook glaring Apple flaws (like cut/paste on the iPhone). What would happen if the average Joe found out he could be an OS X user at a hefty discount in hardware costs... well, that sounds like a problem. Especially in an recession where people are looking to save any dime possible.
No. These other companies wouldn't have a similar case just because someone else bought all of the supplies.
Brian, if you sold a certain product as a front for a set of another, how would you treat a company that just comes along, takes your product, modify it from one copy and then resell it without permission? Do you just pat them on the back and hand them a generous license?
I think you misunderstood me... Apple uses the IP of other companies all the time to advance Apple to the detriment of the other companies... hence me saying you agree that there is hypocrisy
helloUser - You seem to be under the impression that Apple *forced* the chip makers to sell them the chips instead of selling them to smaller retailers. You know, without any conscious choice on the chip maker's part. If you believe that, you are really, really pathetic. What's next, Apple forced people to buy iPods? Apple blackmailed your family? Apple kicked your dog?
Give it up, you're hopeless.
Zak, you stooge, it was all over engadget, read here and inform yourself:
http://www.engadget.com/2005/10/09/samsung-and-apple-being-investigated-by-korean-ftc-for-unfair/
http://www.engadget.com/2005/10/27/creative-ceo-upset-that-apple-created-a-flash-memory-shortage/
There were more stories about that in the link found on those pages, which detailed things more so. I wouldnt expect an apple fanboy (idiot) like yourself yourself to think critically and without bias, therefor im not surprised that your offended by my comments bringing up past hypocritical actions of apple.
You calling me pathetic is rather weak, considering youre incredibly delusional.
That's hysterical. You fail at reading the articles you linked, lol.
"He's complaining that Samsung gave Apple a "one-sided deal" that no one else the industry has been able to get"
Where in the article does it say Apple FORCED Samsung to give them that deal? You're insinuating that it was Apple and Apple alone that caused the shortage, and apparently the possibility that Samsung may have had something to do with it is beyond your comprehension. Is that about right?
But sure, let's use your logic and just throw common sense out the window. Let's just assume Samsung wasn't capable of just telling Apple "No." Maybe Apple threatened them at gunpoint, or something. How else do you think Apple could have gotten those chips if Samsung didn't agree to it? Please enlighten us, this should be funny.
And the final quote from that article you linked (oh the irony):
"Boo freaking Hoo. Hate to say it, but business is business and as long as no laws are broken (and we'll leave that issue up to the Korean FTC to decide), there's nothing wrong with a company locking down a strategic resource (in this case, flash memory) in order to keep it out of the hands of the competition."
Does the phrase "hoisted on your own petard" mean anything to you?
Brian... you'd better have reported that employee... who knows how long it was before Apple found out...
Yes they do lots of nasty things, but they don't train their employees to blatantly lie. If they did, their brand image would be as low as Microsoft's image minus Real's image.
Yes in a free market, using your superior cash position to corner the market is highly illegal. MORON!
Brian, moron number two here. What perspective was this customer painted in? your veracity is as questionable as your vocabulary.
Pretty much boilerplate (although the background description is a little long... good padding of the bills by Apple's lawyers).
Should be interesting, the trademark and trade dress claims probably won't amount to much for Apple (trademark because damages are minimal there, and trade dress because the only clear trade dress "infringement" is of the look of the OS itself, but Psystar isn't selling the OS as its own, they are attributing it to Apple).
The copyright and breach of contract claims are the real interesting issues. If it goes to trial (2-3 years from now), and then appeal (another year), this case has the potential to be groundbreaking. *Sigh* too bad it will never get that far.
Psystar will be bankrupt from legal fees long before that... Which is probably the desired outcome.
Craig... I certain that's the desired outcome. Apple doesn't want this to go to trial either.
I think that Apple will emerge the clear winner against Psystar. They have great lawyer resources and I think that they will clearly show that Psystar is infringing on copyright. This case will be over very quickly. Psystar claims that they have the right to sell OSX on their hardware. That would be like apple saying that they have the right to put blackberry's operating system on the iphone or Garmin saying that they are able to put Tom Tom GPS software on their hardware. Apple will make a fool/example of Psystar!
Or Apple saying customers have the right to put windows on their Macs... GASP!
The metaphor doesn't really extend... OS X is available for purchase, as is the hardware they put it on. Phone operating systems, or GPS operating systems, aren't really transferable. This is more like saying you can only dip your Oreos in Nabisco brand milk.
Imagine the reaction if Microsoft said that Mac users didn't have the right to install Windows on a Mac.
Yes, the fanboy reaction would be "we don't need no stinkin' Windows", but the reaction of the business community would be to not even consider Mac as a purchase option.
@phoomp,
That doesn't make sense, since Apple can't dictate the license agreements of the products of other companies.
@acu200505
i don't think i need to tell you this... with statements like that you probably hear it all the time... do you think before speaking? you obviously didn't think before typing...
MICROSOFT DOESN'T MAKE COMPUTERS! YOUR ANALOGY IS GROSS EPIC FAIL.
where is the 'voteban' option......
What will probably happen in the end is that Psystar will just use the new Boot-132 method, which allows you to make your own CD with a bootloader that has a few kexts and then install OSX from the actual retail disk. No tampering with apple discs.
thanks for this neither legal related nor analytic article! ;)
Apple should also sue all of the lame iPhone knock offs. Most of the people on this site are still very ungrateful for the change that the iPhone has made to the industry by wanting gay and silly features like picture messaging. Who really cares about that shite? What about the great touch screen, video, ipod, email browsing, and other great features? Apple was the first phone to get those right and the geeks on this site sit here and complain about how the phone is'nt good enough. Have you nerds ever seen that movie "Idiocracy?"
It was written about tools like you.
Pull my finger...
Yeah, wow... because NO phone ever had a touch screen, video playback, MP3 player or email access before the iPhone...
Right.
Apple designs their OS, iPods, iPhones and Macs. Yes, it called stealing. Apple has a small market, they have no interest in domination the industry. You don't like it, buy Windows. And if Windows is so great, why is it so expensive too?
Seriously? You're complaining about £50 for a new windows OS? When the cost of OSX must be at least £300 to justify the cost of the Mac Book Pro and at least £450 to justify the cost of the iMac
Wow, this comes from a company (Apple) that hasn't updated the Mac mini in over a year. What do they expect people to do that want an updated headless Mac? I mean is Apple even interested in making true desktop computers anymore? I don't know many people that want to stare at that glare monster of an iMac all day.
A great deal of monitors made now, particularly from Samsung, HP, Asus, Gateway et al are shipping with gloss panels (I love my glossy HP display), and I don't see much difference between the glare on those and the glare on the iMacs. Hate it or love it, glossy seems to be a growing trend amongst computers in general, especially laptops.
But the stagnant update path of the Mac Mini is no excuse.
Glossy is a choice you made. I don't want to make that choice because everyone else is. Manufacturers: keep giving us choice.
Pystar probably don't have much of a case. Though a pretty large part of me wants them to nail Apple for breaking anti trust laws, well because they have. And I really don;t understand why every Apple fanboy thinks that anti trust laws apply exclusively when the company has an effective monopoly because they don't. Say what you want about Microsoft (and I will) but Apple get coddled for being an altogether worse corporation,
Apple hasn't broken any antitrust laws. You can't have a monopoly on your own product. How do people still not get this?
Ok, lets go with your idea that breaking anti trust laws require you to have a monopoly. Apple has shot itself in the foot. Look at their adverts they constantly try to define themselves as a wholly different product to other brands with the PC Vs Mac adverts they have tried to class themselves as a different product, so yes they have a monopoly on Mac hardware and software and by disallowing others to use it they are breaking anti trust laws.
Ok the above is pretty flimsy, I know that since it relies on the premise the anti trust laws require there to be a monopoly, now please state one case where the defendant had an absolute monopoly? Even Microsoft doesn't count as a complete monopoly because they share the market with OSX and Linux distros, and you know what? They weren't even fined for having a monopoly, they were fined for abusing their market position which are 2 very different things. And apple by making the software propietary for the hardware is abusing it's market position, and is therefore breaking the anti trust laws.
Most of that makes no sense. You still seem to be under the impression that you can have a monopoly if you own the products. I'll say it again, but slower this time.
You. Cannot. Have. A. Monopoly. On. Your. Own. Products.
Apple does not have a monopoly on OS X and Mac hardware. Why? Because you can't have a monopoly on your own products. Does Ford have a monopoly on the Mustang? Does McDonald's have a monopoly on the Big Mac?
You can't have a monopoly on your own product. Are we clear on that yet? There are no antitrust issues in the Macintosh marketplace, because Apple owns all the products within that marketplace. See how that works?
Apple is not preventing competition against Macs. Apple does not prevent you from using PCs, they don't prevent you from using Windows, they don't even prevent you from using Windows on Macs. There is no antitrust.
As long as Apple owns the hardware and the software, they can do whatever they want with it. It's not an abuse of marketplace, it's not anything close to antitrust. They own both parts. End of story.
Also, what market position were you referring to? Their 7% market share? Oh yeah... that's a real abuse there. Clearly.
The same way Apple cant get sued for not allowing other mp3 players to work with itunes? Oh wait...
@Eh,
Or like how the Zune software will only interface with Zunes? Or how Sonicstage only worked with Network Walkmans?
In the end, you were always free to just burn the CD from the DRM'd tracks, and simply load them wherever you wish.
So what you're saying Zak, is that Microsoft should never have been sued? Because hey it's their OS they can do whatever the hell they want with it, so can you give them their billion euro's back already?
Juxtah - how are you still not getting this? Apple makes the hardware AND software. Microsoft ONLY makes software. Do you not see the difference there? Microsoft broke antitrust laws by merging IE with Windows, meaning you couldn't remove IE and replace it with Firefox without breaking Windows. THAT is anticompetitive.
Can you replace Safari with Firefox in OS X? Sure, go for it. See how that's different? And since Apple owns their hardware and their software, they can choose to disallow the installation of OS X on machines other than Macs. That is their right, because they own both components. So while you may not like it, it is perfectly legal.
You know why you can't play 360 games on a PS3? Because Microsoft doesn't want you to. This is the exact same thing. Apple owns the products, so they can make the rules.
Seriously why are you still throwing the monopoly word around?
Number 1, Anti trust laws do not require you to have a monopoly.
Number 2, Anti Trust laws do not automatically no longer apply if a company owns the hardware and software.
Simply put your idea that 'a company cant have a monopoly on its own products' is wrong, since it means that total market monopoly's are impossible, yet they obviously are and Apple is an example of that, through their own adverts they've have created a separate market for their products, and in that market they own and control everything, otherwise known as a monopoly. The fact that because they own it all that doesn't make it a monopoly? Simply false, in fact that adds more weight towards it being a monopoly.
Yes, Macs are in direct competition with computers, however although regular computers and Apple branded ones carry the same hardware they are marketed very differently in fact they are marketed by Apple itself as completely different products. Even if you don't class this as a monopoly they are still breaking anti trust laws by only licensing OSX for their own hardware, again you'll say it's their IP they can do what they want with it, but take this scenario into consideration what if Microsoft announced tomorrow that they would only license copies of Windows to Microsoft branded computers that it was now going to manufacture? There would be total uproar overnight, and several thousand Anti trust litigation's would be thrown in it's face.
So why is Apple different? And this lawsuit alone proves they are being anti competitive, OK Psystar is breaking the EULA by hacking OSX to run on normal hardware however if they have bought legal copies from Apple and installed it on normal hardware. OK they are still breaking the law, and I'm ok with them getting sued for that, however Psystar was in competition with Apple and to combat this Apple simply threw a lot of litigation at Psystar in the hope that enough would stick to bankrupt them, kind of the Microsoft days of old wouldn't you say?
@ Juxtah
how is it anti-trust? Apple isn't preventing anyone from developing their own OS and/or hardware and selling it! That would be anti-trust.
They just don't want people selling their stuff in a way they didn't mean for it be (e.g. altering the product, violation agreements, violating copyright law, and selling it to make a profit) and they have that right.
Apple is (potentially) breaking antitrust laws because the EULA is a tying agreement, which are impermissible if the tying party (Apple) has "market power." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) ("Some kinds of tying, especially by contract, have historically been regarded as anti-competitive practices. The basic idea is that consumers are harmed by being forced to buy an undesired good (the tied good) in order to purchase a good they actually want (the tying good), and so would prefer that the goods be sold separately. The company doing this bundling may have a significantly large market share so that it may impose the tie on consumers, despite the forces of market competition. The tie may also harm other companies in the market for the tied good, or who sell only single components.")
This would obviously depend on how you define the market. If you say "All PCs," then Apple probably doesn't. But, courts don't typically define markets that broadly, and in its niche market of consumer-based PC, it is certainly arguable that Apple has market power.
This is the "antitrust violation" that Zak so desperately wants examples of... now that I've provided it, I'm *sure* he'll recant his position.
"somewhat charmingly"? More like somewhat disgustingly. Just great, your stupid article was quoted in their allegations. Fine the hardware was loud, big deal, nothing to be proud of discovering and writing about.
In reality your article was used as a salvo in Apple's stupid tightfisted control of its OS. Some us want to try Mac OS without buying Apple hardware period. We know it may not offer the same experience of running it on Apple's overpriced, over hyped hardware, but I'll take the chance and I know what I'm getting into thank you very much.
I'll try Mac OS on the only laptop hardware I'll ever buy: Thinkpad.
You're aware that your last sentence negates your previous seven, right?
You know that Psystar is also releasing that EFI USB keychain right?
Your sense of entitlement is silly. If you want OS X, but don't want to pay for Apple's hardware, just build a Hackintosh.
I'd rather have it done easily with the backing of a firm. We don't know if psystar's service and support will be worth paying for but I hope so. It is about time that a company can build a business model around making MacOS installs on PCs easy and supporting those installs.
It's all about choice. I don't want to sit and build a hackintosh, and who are you to tell me I have a sense of entitlement? I pay psystar and they offer support, you don't need to butt into my desire to have that service.
If this comes out, more people will do it and even if Psystar's support is not worthy, there will be much more resources on how to do it, and maintain it.
In your world only 1337 hax0rs should be able to run Mac OS on a PC. You fail to see the implications of this for everyone who doesn't have the uber skillz you have. We have a chance to see Mac OS on PC for the interested masses, but you think we don't deserve it because we're not 1337 enough.
BTW, if my leet-speak is wrong somewhere I don't give a damn. Elitist pig.
Kaiser, a hackintosh "violates" the exact same laws that Psystar is being accused of. Why would you open yourself up to the liability?
Mikey, building a personal Hackintosh is not the same. You scrounged your own parts together and use it for personal duty. You're only likely going to get a response from Apple if you turn that Hackintosh around and try to garner a profit off of it by selling dozens of examples.
Kaiser... nope. You're still in violation of the EULA, and thus of Apple's copyright claim as well (you're right, the trademark, trade dress, and unfair competition claims should go out the window assuming you don't sell your hackintosh). But, the EULA and copyright claims are the real big claims, particularly against an individual (the statutory damages for copyright infringement is pretty big, just ask the lady who got hit with a huge judgment by the RIAA for downloading music)
Apple tried licensing Mac OS to 3rd parties back in the 90s. It didn't work out, so I doubt they'll ever voluntarily open that up again.
The minute psystar took Apple's bait by modifying the 10.5.4 patch to profit from it, they sign their lives away. Hey if you where to modified Vista service pack 1 to run pirated software and you put it up for sell, don't expect to get away with it clean.
Sure it's not legal advice, but isn't it all analysis?
I would support Psystar if they used an EFI emulator, but by modifying code, I'm not supporting that.
How did Apple find Psystar to be able to serve them?
They keep moving!
Just for fun, Psystar should get this case kicked for lack of personal jurisdiction (i.e. the court has no power to render judgments against Psystar essentially because it isn't located in the district). Apple made no allegations regarding personal jurisdiction in N.D. Cal. At best they made a venue argument that "Psystar conducted business in the district," but that isn't necessarily enough. Make Apple prove they actually sold some computers there (probably not that hard, but why should Psystar make Apple's job easy?)
It was Filed in Federal District Court, NOTE:FEDRAL- (not State).. Big difference from what you are Claiming.
You must have personal jurisdiction in Federal as well as State courts, it's a constitutional requirement for due process
Furthermore, this jurisdictional argument would limit the damages Psystar faces because they would only be liable for the computers sold within the district, correct?
True about the jurisdictional information, But if you will read the brief more clearly and are aware of the court system of the laws of California and Florida you will see that it all is kosher.
27 years in law, i just haven't jumped ship to hear myself talk.
You need to understand that the way the brief is stated, moreover other papers that have "not been publicized" on our internet, Jumping to a conclusion on how jurisdiction prudence is at fail; It is just Armchair lawyering at it's best.
Fact's of the Brief are located if you Live in the California area and would like to do further Footwork on your part, or if you have $120.00 an hour to call my office, i will be happy to steer you in the correct direction to obtain the information on how our Federal Laws Work.
All information leading to this case has been properly set; and in time, without further argument, you will see for yourself, but you fundamental breakdown on why and how the legal planning of Apple's law team possible could fail because the Discovery and brief were improperly filled in the Wrong court and without Jurisdictional Prudence Leave Much to be desired on your part.
But You can believe in what you wish.
Wow, a whole $120/hour after 27 years of experience, you must be good. But, in order for me to meet with you, you'll have to my $300/hour fee (and only 1 year of experience... hmm, I seem to be doing OK).
Also, the linked document is not a brief (are you sure you're a lawyer?), it's a complaint (generically referred to as a pleading). Briefing won't take place for a long time.
My only point was they didn't plead personal jurisdiction... which is a requirement in Federal court.
I was merely making a "what if" statement... that's the point of these comments. I don't serious believe that jurisdiction isn't proper (which would only require Psystar to have sold 1 computer in the N.D. Cal... which I'm sure they've done). I'm perfectly proficient in the law of Federal Courts (it is where I practice, after all), so I don't need lectures from a dime-store hack.
@ everyone making $100.00+/hr
i make $28.84/hr... and i knew they filed the docs correctly.
i should be a lawyer... i'd be incredible if i actually studied law!
@Mikey
Save yourself from bragging, It is clear to anyone that has been in this field for some time, We charges a flat consultation rate per phone Consultation.
"Phone Consultation" is the wording here, and like in allot of you other post, you focus on the most direct and assume, Now if you are charging 3 bills for someone to talk with you on a landline, no wonder you spend so much time on these areas.
Face to face my friend, is much different, and that is only if our firm will take the case, it also depends on the type of case.
“Why Didn’t you know that?”
Most landline Meetings take on average 15 to 30 minutes, and we proceed from there on charges and face to face discovery.
"Are you really that out of touch?"
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, and trying to escalate your standing with rude and unproductive wording just demeans your Character, obsessiveness to prove everything you say is correct, will be your undoing.
There are allot of intelligent readers out there, i really believe they can see they type of information and dominance that you are portraying, truly it is important to your ego, and your self worth to be correct
You may have the last word.
So much his own,
1st Mistake,
You assumed my Phone Consultation fee, was a face to face charge.
2nd Mistake,
You got angry.
3rd Mistake,
Assuming without having fact’s
“If you truly are in your First year, It Show’s”
When someone reacts like this, clearly it’s seen as hiding something, or just not well versed in the facts, and trying to bluff.
But save yourself some face by spouting your own personal feelings, if you even are a professional, “And highly doubt you are, from your reaction”, try to refrain from getting angry and posting some useless blurb, that you think is an attack in the final sentence of your posting.
It only shows you are aggravated, you exposes weakness anyone can exploit, Learn to control your feeling’s.
Maybe in a few years, you will learn that emotion in writing, especially if you truly are trying to just stick to facts, And/or in a court room, will make you lose a case faster then a guilty client.
Note I Said: "Emotion" (your Emotion"
I did get a real good Chuckle. :-)
“enjoy writing you rebuttal, I have already waisted enough time on this posting, Just to add, that I encourage all readers to check out the facts at other sites.”
It’s your show Consoler, no more food from me.
Peace to all.
Kim, you started the insults, not me... you also made assumptions that just aren't true. And finally, you started this whole discussion with an irrelevant statement about state vs. federal court.
And at least I know how to spell "counselor." And use quotation marks (since most of your "quotes" seem to be your own statements, because they aren't anything I wrote). And use full paragraphs. And apostrophes ("shows" is not a possessive noun in the context you were using it)
Finally, for someone who is claiming to be an experienced professional, you acted just as immaturely as you claimed I was acting (you used an emoticon for God's sake).
And for someone who is arguing that I was trying to bluff and act superior, it's interesting that you were the first one to throw out how much you charge. I was perfectly fine keeping this as a discussion about the law, but you had to act all big and bad implying that I need to pay you $120 to be given the privilege of your legal brilliance.