Apple wins copyright infringement case against Psystar in California
By Nilay Patel 
posted November 14th 2009 5:59PM
posted November 14th 2009 5:59PM
Okay -- got your popcorn? Let's do this thing. (We're skipping right to the analysis section, but the key piece of info from the facts section is that Psystar didn't install OS X from its purchased DVDs, but from a Mac mini "imaging station.")
- Copyright infringement. The court agrees with Apple right down the line here -- Psystar is illegally copying, modifying, and distributing Mac OS X, and the court basically slams the whole license-vs-own argument into the ground, saying, "Even assuming arguendo that Psystar was the owner of a copy... the copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner." Psystar was making multiple copies of OS X from its imaging station, and you just can't do that without permission. Furthermore, Psystar's argument that it includes a purchased copy of OS X with all of its computers fell flat, as the version of the OS on the machines was often different than the version on the disc, and several of the machines examined didn't have discs included at all. Oops.
- Creation of derivative works. This is part of copyright infringement, but we're going to break it out because it's a major key to the case. In order to boot OS X on a hackintosh, Psystar replaced the OS X bootloader, disabled and removed Apple kernel extensions, and added its own kernel extensions. That was enough variation from Apple's code to warrant a finding of copyright infringement all on its own -- Psystar was essentially selling a custom version of Apple's copyrighted code, and you're not allowed to do that without permission. What does that mean? It means that you can throw out all the arguments about EULAs and ownership and fair use, because Psystar's main business -- hacking OS X to run on non-Apple hardware -- is illegal. What can we say? We told you so.
- Copyright misuse. After Psystar's antitrust and monopoly arguments were thrown out, it tried to argue that Apple was misusing its copyright on OS X by limiting it to Apple hardware. It was an interesting and ballsy argument, and the court didn't buy it for a second: "Apple has not prohibited others from independently developing and using their own operating systems. Thus, Apple did not violate the public policy underlying copyright law or engage in copyright misuse." Put another way, as long as Apple doesn't try to prevent OS X owners from buying Windows PCs, it can sell OS X however it wants.
- DMCA violations. Everyone's favorite section of copyright law gets some time in the sun -- the court found that Psystar illegally circumvented the OS X kernel encryption when it hacked OS X and booted it on non-Apple hardware. Amusingly, Psystar tried to argue that Apple's encryption wasn't effective because the keys are available on the internet, but that's just not how the law works at all. "Here, when the decryption key was not employed, the encryption effectively worked to prevent access to Mac OS X. And that is all that is required." Ouch.
- Relief. Psystar's gonna pay, but we don't know how much, because the court hasn't decided yet. Stay tuned -- that's going down next month.
- Remaining issues. Apple's complaint contained a number of other claims besides copyright infringement, and they're still on for trial. The big one is breach of contract, which is the fight over the OS X EULA -- but since Psystar has already been found liable for straight copyright infringement, we don't think it stands a chance of invalidating the EULA. There's also a number of trademark claims and unfair competition claims, none of which will affect the main ruling here. In short: things don't look so good for Psystar.
Now, this case only covered Leopard; Apple and Psystar are fighting a separate case over Snow Leopard in Florida, which means we haven't heard the end of this yet. If we were betting, though, we'd say that case will end up just like this one -- to quote Groklaw, "Judges notice if you were just found guilty of a similar cause of action in another state." Yeah.
Oh, there's also the small matter of definitively proving whether or not Psystar is stealing code from the OSx86 community, and we hope to have more on that next week -- we'll let you know.
The thing is, Microsoft never manufactures the computer itself. Only Mac does.
You can't fault Microsoft for Lenovo making black, boxy work notebooks while Apple ships out sexy, glossy MacBooks for...
Huh???
Verizon and Nokia infringed on Apple?
Lolwut??
Will Sue help them? far as I was aware Sue pretty much keeps to herself these days
Apple = 2
Psystar = 1
K.O.!
Keep pruning that walled garden, Apple.
i will lay down odds that next week Apple will go to Florida and file a motion to have it declared that Leopard and Snow Leopard are the same thing in regards to these matters. And then when that is granted, file for a summary judgment citing the California ruling as guidance. And as such, the Florida judge will very very likely rule the same as California.
I would like to know who Psystar's backers are.
That toasty smell coming from Florida? It ain't bagels.
@ Adrian
Here's a little info on them.
http://www.laweekly.com/2009-11-12/news/pedraza-vs-macintosh-worms-in-the-apple/
Doing a little bit of engadget's work here ;)
@Adrian-Maybe they are the same employers for Arlington Stewart which is why they can not be disclosed.
For goodness sake Apple, just let us run OSX on whatever computer system we want and save us all the hassle.
I certainly agree! That said, I definitely disagree with the means that Psystar took to do so, i.e taking code from the hackintosh community and then 'dissing' them (as covered in the last podcast).
although perhaps dissing the hackintosh community will save it from any reprocussions of this lawsuit. (meaning apple would have to sue them seperately)
For the nth time, Apple is a hardware company. Apple does not have the capacity, nor intention, to provide support for OSX on 3rd party platforms.
Serious question, Rod: why should they?
@Euan - yep! 'Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones'
(but I still have a soft spot for Psystar for taking the fight right into the Lion's den - just a shame they turned up at a gun fight...with a knife!
It is not in Apple's best interest to sell OS X as a standalone product. They use their software sell hardware. Selling OS X for PCs would cause them to lose some hardware sales. Even if selling OS X as a standalone only lost them one hardware sale for every 20 new OS sales, it would probably still reduce their profits.
@TylerDurden and Uncontrol:
I know Apple is ALSO a hardware company, I couldn't care less as a consumer. If I can run Windows on a emulator on OSX then I don't see why the OSX can't be run on a Windows system. Why? Because Apple would make a lot of money!
The whole support issue is a moot point - just licence it as is, the hakintosh community have been doing very well without official Apple support. I for one would be prepared to pay for a legit copy of OSX with limited support from Apple and find my own solutions through other channels when required. I just want to use OSX for a few things in my life without either having to pay a king's ransom for the hardware (and software) or having to completely hack my PC to bits (illegally according to Apple's small print).
That's not unreasonable is it?
if only apple would listen to engadget poster "rod", they could finally become profitable ...
They do already. They never attacked the OSX86 project. Why are people so ignorant of the difference? Psystar ripped off netkas too. They deserve to get ass raped.
Hey 'Uncontrol' - here's your dummy back. This isn't personal.
I'm sure a lot of people would love to be able to run OSX in a window on W7. The only reason I would appreciate this is to run Final Cut Pro, but i'm so heavily up to the eye balls in PC h/w that it's not gonna happen any time soon.
just because you want to run OS X doesn't mean apple has any incentive whatsoever to release OS X as a standalone product. everyone who keeps parroting that apple needs, NEEDS to release OS X for all machines if they want to continue to grow is insanely short-sighted and foolish
Buy yourself a Mac if you want to run OSX and save YOURSELF a lot of hassle.
A Non-linear video editor in a virtualized environment? Are you even half serious? That'd be slower than slow as molasses.
I never made that assertion. I never mentioned anything about Apple 'needing' to do anything. (Although as it happens, I do think there will come a time when Apple starts to entertain the idea of a standalone OS, just like one day Porsche might start putting their engines in the proper place...the front of the car!) No, I just want to pay Apple to use their software, like all the other potential 1 billion customers :)
It may take a sea change, we may be walking on Mars before it happens...but it'll happen!
Whichever company it is....they are here for only 1 reason...to make money...in however way they wish(if there was no law..am sure they would have used any illegal way to make money).
All that talk like "consumer's need"/"environment friendly" many corporates say is bullshit....they wouldn't do anything if they do not have some kinda gain from it.
Behind every step a business organization takes, there is a selfish reason(can be profits, brand reputation, what not)...what else do you expect ? None of them are here for charity.
of course it is unreasonable !
it's not YOU to order how others people decide for their own property.
Apple doesn't care about marketshare in operating system, there are NO MONEY THERE.
Microsoft is only succeeding because it's a software company with an incredible luck when IBM created the pc.
Apple is an HARDWARE enterprise. they sell hardware, they live hardware, they breath hardware, they roll in hardware. they smoke hardware. HARDWARE.
Their whole business is HARDWARE
and the software is a mean to improve their HARDWARE. Their hard work in the software is to improve their HARD WORKD in the HARDWARE.
you can read all the numbers about apple business it's all about : hardware
and a tiny portion about software, all tiny. very tiny.
they don't want marketshare, they want profit to continue to do as they always did : creating great computers.
-
there are NO market for os x on pc. NONE.
you are a geek, a hacker, a unbelievable technical person, it's GOOD for you, but you are NOT a market.
you are NOT the mass wanting another os.
the mass want a COmputer WORKING just fine.
They do not want to buy box with linux or os X. They can admit a "update" kit, nothing more.
and they are RIGHT. Operating system is complicate stuff inside my computer I shouldn't care : I just want a great computer.
OS is a PART of a great computer, an important part, maybe the most important part, Apple knows it, you know it , I know it.
Because we ALL know it, you know apple HAS to maintain an absolute control on it.
-
Microsoft is not simply selling windows. Microsoft is a part of the stuff used by cheap company to make cheap computers.
Apple is NOT a software provider for others companies
You don't WANT them to be that !
you love apple mac os x because it's NOT what windows is : a common operating system for the industry.
-
apple can make os x thanks to Mac, apple can make Mac thanks to os x.
it's sad
but true
years after years you can read the business numbers; they are HARD, Horrible and painfully TRUE.
-
In reality, you don't want to force apple. you just want apple to be apple, and quietly, as you love, hacking your computer with software you like.
do not ask more, because people can't give you more, they would love but they can't.
Go to see Linux. it's HARD work made with all love and passion people can bring.
It's the same with Microsoft and Apple, they are what they need to be. it's not evil from hell.
-
Microsoft and Apple are NOT the same kind of company. Not at all
one is software based
one is hardware based
All is simple.
No thank you! One of the reasons I love Apple computers is not having to worry about all that hardware configuration BS plus all the crap that comes with it. If I wanted to give myself those headaches then I'd have just built yet another PC.
Oh Come on Oomu, stop holding back, tell us how you really feel ;)
@ Rod, So you would pay $999 for FCP but you can't afford a Mac?
*cough* if Apple is a hardware company, why can I go into an Apple store and just buy OSX? Oh right, because they are both a hardware AND software company, otherwise they would just sell their machines with Windows.
Absolutely!
If only that was the only cost and if only it could run natively on my PC. That, unfortunately would be the tip of the iceberg as I would then need to drop at least another $4K to get an Apple system that would come close to performing as quickly as the PC system I just built - which cost's less than half the price to build than the Mac. (Whilst I appreciate the benefits of Apple products, I very much prefer PC's to Macs. I'm not a fan of locked down systems / software and I don't mind it when things break all the time!)
It's all very well saying buy a Mac...but not at their costs / performance ratio, it doesn't make sense to me. I don't care about pretty hardware and I don't hang out in Starbucks. I'm not bothered with OSX on the whole (it's a great OS) but i'm very happy to use any OS - OSX, W7, or Linux for my everyday computing, with a preference for W7...but for all things video I have to say I prefer FCP over Adobe products. I just don't fancy laying another 5K on the table to do so.
@TylerDurden
I guess Quicktime isn't software, then.
Do you guys think you're clever by pointing out Apple makes software as well, or something? The issue is that their software industry is meaningless without their bread-and-butter; the hardware. It's like saying Microsoft is a hardware company because the manufacture mice and keyboards and XBOXs along with creating Windows.
You are obviously unable to grasp the concept for a successful business model.
Yes, I understand that Psystar was wrong in this case, but wouldn't they go around this lawsuit if they just perform the service? For example, let's say i buy the osx software, and want to install it to a pc. Couldn't i just send the money to psytar and say "hey, i wan't you to install this on my pc"?
For all those dumbasses who keep parroting that Apple needs to release OS X as a universal install for any PC:
1) The computer world does not revolve around how Microsoft's business model: OS on any PC.
2) Apple has its own business model: highly integrated hardware and software (like the Wii or PS3)
3) Apple is extremely profitable as is and will soon make more money than Microsoft.
Apple's soaring piles of cash:
http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-of-the-week-apples-soaring-pile-of-cash-2009-11
Apple market cap closing in on Microsoft's
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-market-cap-apple-vs-microsoft-2009-11
iPhone: Most profitable phone on Earth
http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/11/10/10gigaom-apple-shoots-past-nokia-as-worlds-most-profitable-2393.html
And you Apple-haters can keep hating but nothing's going to change Apple's soaring and accelerating success.
@Tylerdurden
Apple is a hardware bundling company. If they truly were a hardware company they wouldn't use ATI, Intel, Asus, or any other parts made by true hardware company. Apple bundles everything together and sells it in a nice package, but they're no hardware company.
I was really hoping that maybe, just maybe, Psystar had a chance
Psystar cannot be allowed to rip off Apple.
unfair competition? seems like ANY competition would be considered unfair by them...
Good. Apple has not gone after Hackintoshers and the only reason it would start would be if someone were to start making money off of it. The sooner Psystar goes away, the more likely the Hackintosh community will be left alone.
dingding
this is nothing but good news for hackintoshers
I love you!
How is that? I would think this gives Apple more reason to go after them. Psystar stole its code from the hackintosh community in the first place, and if Apple beat Psystar because they were "illegally copying, modifying, and distributing Apple's code", that means Apple has an easy win if it chooses to go after the hackintosh community
So specifically blacklisting Atom processors is not going after hackintoshers?
@EGO
How could Apple take down the hackintosh community? You can find guides to install OS X with a simple google search. If you need OS X just head to a torrent site. Apple will be as successful as the RIAA if they ever try to do that. Long live hackintosher's!
@Jackson "Good. Apple has not gone after Hackintoshers and the only reason it would start would be if someone were to start making money off of it." - Hello! It doesn't matter if someones making money off it or not because Apple is still potentially losing a hardware sale on every hackintosh built. Therefore they have good reason to go after the hackintosh community regardless if they are "making money" off it. BTW by building a hackintosh out of generic Intel hardware they are making money off, the cost difference between buying generic Intel hardware and premium priced Apple hardware is their profit margin. And Apple is going after hackintoshers by killing off the Atom, the reason they killed the Atom is because they see cheap netbook hackintoshes as a serious threat to their profits.
Yes, finally somebody gets it. And isn't immediately low ranked for pointing it out. Apple doesn't care if individuals do this for their own use, they care when sleazebuckets like Psystar try to make money off of it.