Judge rules against Psystar
Psystar's 'open computers' may soon be less open, with the company receiving a judgement that it has broken copyright law.
As reported over on CNET, Judge Alsup found that Psystar's resale of Apple's Mac OS X operating system on third-party hardware "has violated Apple's exclusive reproduction right, distribution right, and right to create derivative works."
Arguments by Psystar that its 'freeing' of the operating system to be installed on third-party, non-Apple approved hardware represented fair use was outright rejected as part of the summary judgement, with Judge Alsup stating that Psystar "does not even attempt to address the four factors used to determine fair use."
Also upheld was Apple's complaint that the company's methods of bypassing the hardware restrictions inherent in the operating system - which prevent its installation on non-Apple manufactured systems, despite similarities and compatibilities in their hardware - represented a clear violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, both in the methods the company itself uses to install Mac OS X on third-party hardware and in the utilities it sells to allow end users to do the same.
Although the ruling will come as a blow to Psystar, the judgement does not include an injunction preventing further sale: rather, a hearing to determine exactly what punishment the company should receive is set for the 14th of December, with a trial set for January next year if the two companies do not agree on Apple's other claims including breach of contract and trademark offences.
Do you believe that Psystar should be allowed to sell non-Apple Mac OS X machines, or is Apple well within its rights to shut the little shop down once and for all? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Previous Article
32 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyDoesn't stop me installing the Mac OS on hackintoshes I make mind you.
There should be no diffrence between the big and the small companies in terms of law, a good exsample is the IE case, why aren't microsoft allowed to include IE when Apple can include Safari ?
The problem comes in when divorcing the operating system from a retail apple product. We know apple don't like people tampering with their code - putting out updates to brick jailbroken iPhones for example - whether they have that right (as it's not technically copyright, it's not being reproduced without authorisation, it is just being used in a different way as it stipulated in EULA and legally speaking the EULA won't tend to hold up in court as a binding document, it comes down to the judges agreement on 'reasonableness') and in this case I expect Apple had far more and far more expensive lawyers than Psystar.
Welcome to reality and capitalism. Enjoy your stay. :)
Because when Microsoft do it it's anti-competitive, whereas when apple do it it is not, because apple lack the power to seriously control the browser market, whereas Microsoft could very easily control the browser market.
Anti-monopoly practices are actually nothing to do with laissez-faire capitalism DarkLord7875 - but rather are measures instituted by the state for the benefit of the consumer (at the cost of impacting upon the ability for any single corporate entity to fully maximise profits).
In fact it's much better for consumers, in general, to have this guarantee of anti-monopoly laws. Part of the purpose of a state is to maintain it's own monopoly on force and legislation, this is in order that corporate entities which are not designed to represent you, but rather designed to create or gain wealth for their shareholders, do not use their size and economic power to restrict the choices of the individual in society.
Surely there cant be a problem with that? its just a company selling PCs that just so happen to be fully capable of running OSX
Isn't America great?
OSX is created as the software component to a Mac.
Its no different then palm, palm OS is only for palm devices.
Apple has always marketed OSX only to its Mac customers. When you buy a Mac you buy a hardware + software solution that provides a function.
Microsoft is Selling Software, period. Comparing OSX to Windows in this way is like trying to say that since the xbox360 OS runs on a PPC, then there shouldn't be any reason i can't buy a PS3 and install the 360 OS on it.
A Mac is NOT a PC.
Wikipedia disagrees ;)
No it really is. Then again if you own a mac and are the kind of mindless sheep that fools for cheap marketing ploys and shows no signs of any self determination to find anything out for yourself other than what Steve Jobs tells you to do.... So pretty much the perfect Mac customer :)
Macs can run on a standard PC, it's just there's a layer of driver/hardware integration that's slightly different to PC. I'm sure this has a valid design reason and isn't intentionally put in place to block running MacOS on PC, but it doesn't mean it'd be that difficult to release two installs of MacOS. Mac version and "Unsupported" PC version.
As far as I can tell, Apple are concerned about delivering a stable end product every time (even though they ****ed up on multiple accounts(here's look at you lying about your screens colour reproduction!)). Sort of why we want dedicated servers for MW2. When that mac comes out the box it works. If people got the idea that they could install MacOS on PC hardware and have it work perfectly then Apples reputation would start to crumble.
What they should do is have an install on the disc that is "unsupported" by Apple. I.e. install at your own risk. Hidden from the non-power users. To prevent...idiots.
I just don't wanna pay £2k for something I could get for £500. :)
second that, Apple is the real monopoly
I will, in between crying in my sleep :'(
Wether or not Microsoft has a monopoly on the marked depends on how you look at it, if you look at desktops then yes, but looking at laptops apple has a mutch greater market share than 10 %, thus making this a competitive market and not a monopoly.
Can't really agree with that. Even if you treat the iMac as a laptop due to the components being laptop components. Why do you think Apple have paid good money to defend their position in this case? If it had to sell just it's operating system it would go bust over night. Would you pay £2,000 for a system you could build yourself for £750?
No, no they're not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly :D
I think it's fair enough. Psystar were blatently infringing on Apple's copyright protection, there's no way they could have ever thought what they were doing was remotely legal.
It'd be like a musician taking a sample of someone else's song, placing it in their own without their permission, and then selling the mash-up on their own new album. It's not "freeing the song", it's just stealing. Even if they bought a copy of the original song for every copy of the new version they sold, and credited the original artist, it's still illegal.
Did Psystar sell the machines with a legal payed for license of OSX? if they did then then its not the same as stealing another artists song as each copy sold would have been payed for, in the same way as royalties would be payed to the original artist.
Im not saying apple are wrong, i would have done the same in their situation, and they may not be the market leader like microsoft, But forcing people to use specific hardware that has to be bought from them to use OSX is wrong imo.
Just because your the bigger or smaller company shouldnt make the rules any different, What if microsoft wanted to scrap their current business plan and sell their own branded computers running windows, Banning all other computer manufacturers from using windows?
Its not going to happen but what if?
Could I buy Mirror's Edge and change the lead character to a bloke and re-sell it, calling it "Mirror's Edge" special edition? I think EA would have the lawyers on me pretty fast.
That's my take
I suspect you wouldn't believe that all companies should be treated the same if you explored the issues a little.
There are very few monopolies in existence these days, so Microsoft are pretty much going to have to be my example. As you say, what if Microsoft started to only sell Windows with their own computers, which had a starting price of $2000? Furthermore, they aggressively pursued court action against anyone infringing upon any one of their many thousands of patents so as to make it extremely hard for anyone to give the consumer what the consumer wanted in a computer. What if they also only allowed software they had developed in house to be run on an MS computer, and all the software cost at least $100?
This would be stopped by governments, because it has a seriously negative outcome for the consumer. Microsoft have the power, up to a point, to screw over the consumer as a direct result of their monopoly. This can't happen in an environment in which there are numerous real competitors.
I'm not generally someone who favours government regulation of the free markets, but paradoxically, to ensure they remain free markets, government intervention is required.
I do understand why apple arent technically in the same boat as MS, and im glad that massive companies are government bound for the benefit of the consumer.
I just think that it shouldnt be right for apple to force OSX to only be available on mac hardware, especially now as the hardware apple use is more or less the same as the consumer can buy in the shops.
People will still buy apple products because they look great, I cant see how a company building a PC and shipping it with OSX would cause apple to lose money, Surely the people that buy them couldnt afford or wouldnt have bought a mac anyways?
psystar is bunch of thieves who stole from hackint0sh community and currently are selling rebel efi which confilcts with tha APSL (check http://netkas.org/?p=310). they cannot hack someones work, use their code, twist it and do i don't know what with it without their permission it's not fair practice, not at all.
just grow up and take it as a fact. apple developed mac os to run on mac hardware. if you don't like it get something else than mac, if you want to run mac os buy a mac. period.