Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Orders Permanent Injunction Against Psystar

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the not-much-wiggle-room-left dept.

The Courts 242

AdmiralXyz writes "It appears to be the end of the road for infamous Mac clone-maker Psystar, as a federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against the company, banning it from selling its OS X-based hardware products, following November's ruling that Psystar was guilty of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Specifically, Judge William Alsup's ruling prevents Psystar from 'copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing or creating derivative works of Mac OS X without authorization from Apple; circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X; or doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.' The ruling does not include Psystar's Rebel EFI software, which (in theory) allows users to boot OS X onto some Intel computers, but Alsup said that too would be unlikely to stand up in court if Apple decides to make a formal challenge."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Either Way (2, Funny)

flyneye (84093) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456566)

Injunction or not, it would still be shot at the Israel border as ''Not Kosher".

Re:Either Way (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456630)

Happy Hanukkah everyone, Ill be here all night!

Re:Either Way (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457368)

Best. Segue. Ever.

You could write for Letterman.

Re:Either Way (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30458396)

I just smashed my Mac Mini. I hit it with a hammer until it was in pieces. I had bought it only about two months ago, but after this I will no longer buy, nor even use, Apple products.

I'm now using Linux on my old desktop, rather than supporting Apple by using their products. It was an enjoyable system to use, but it is not worth it if I have to live with knowing that freedom is being stifled like this for no good reason.

Re:Either Way (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458670)

So you waited until they won the case and didn't take issue with the fact that Apple made the motion in the first place?

Dungodung is a loser (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30456624)

Like Nawlinkwiki and Chris G.

Go to this Wikipedia and vandalize it. Tell them Willy on Wheels aka Grawp's Dad sent you.

Re:Dungodung is a loser (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30456648)

Like Nawlinkwiki and Chris G.

Go to this Wikipedia and vandalize it. Tell them Willy on Wheels aka Grawp's Dad sent you.

Trolls sure are getting demanding these days. How much experience do I get for this quest?

Just for fun (4, Interesting)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456626)

Just for fun..

Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

Re:Just for fun (-1, Offtopic)

Khris (1010709) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456660)

Microsoft would never do that because they'd essentially be hacking off a limb. They need Winblows on as many machines as they can.

Re:Just for fun (1)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456684)

... but it seems that they *could* if they wanted to.

Re:Just for fun (2, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456800)

Well the issue here is Micrsoft is a SOFTWARE company, not HARDWARE. Apple on the otherhand is the later. Microsoft would have a hard time proving in court that it was seriously effecting their bottom line unless only THEY made those Intel machines. Apple on the otherhand could easily show that it was since only THEY make machines that run OS X.

Re:Just for fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30457266)

Apple is as much of a hardware company as you are a nobel prize winner, there isn't a sole in the world who buys apple because of their great hardware, they buy it because of the software, and the pretty packages.

Re:Just for fun (2, Insightful)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458060)

here isn't a sole in the world who buys apple because of their great hardware

Well I did, I bought my last 4 PC's specifically for the hardware _and_ the software.

Clue: there's more aspects to hardware than tech specs or CPU architecture. Think esthetics, ergonomics, durability, amount of write-off on your investment over time, etc. Many of Apple's computer products have no comparable alternative from another manufacturere, there's no Mac-Mini alternative that compares to it in terms of size and features, no iMac alternative with the same specifications and ethetics, no MacBook alternative with the same build quality and multitouch features, and so on. If you don't value these things, buy something else, but don't pretend as if there's a cheaper alternative from other vendors that compares on these aspects.

Re:Just for fun (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458254)

Erm no, that's not true. The look of their machines means just as much too. Otherwise why spend money on the hardware design and just stick it in a generic PC case.

Macs generally run smoother too and that is down to Apple controlling the hardware and what goes in the machine. A Mac is not a mac just because of the OS.

Re:Just for fun (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458438)

Actually, there isn't a sole [wikipedia.org] in the world that buys Apple, period. On the other hand, there are many souls that buy Apple because of the hardware. Not many PC's have the nice backlit keyboards and such. There's no PC that's directly comparable to the Macbook Air. And so on.

Re:Just for fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30458820)

Not many PC's have the nice backlit keyboards and such.

Mod parent retarded. There are a million backlit keyboards available. I have one myself.

Re:Just for fun (1)

rackeer (1607869) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456802)

Is Windows sold or licensed?

From November's ruling [groklaw.net] :

[MacOS...] are covered by software license
2 agreements that provided that the software is “licensed, not sold to [the user] by Apple Inc.
3 (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License” (Chung Exh. 26 at 1). Apple’s license
4 agreements restricted the use of Mac OS X to Apple computers, and specifically prohibited
5 customers from installing the operating system on non-Apple computers.

Re:Just for fun (2, Interesting)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457532)

They may claim its a license but do you sign a licensing agreement at the time of the transaction? No. Do you ever sign a licensing agreement? No. If you bought the software, opened it, and refused the license would they allow you to return it? No.

Call it a license all day long for all I care but that sure looks like a sale to me.

Re:Just for fun (1, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457854)

They may claim its a license but do you sign a licensing agreement at the time of the transaction? No. Do you ever sign a licensing agreement? No. If you bought the software, opened it, and refused the license would they allow you to return it? No.

This is what happens from a legal point of view: Apple proposes to sell a box with a DVD, plus the right to install the DVD on a single Apple computer, and asks you in return for some money plus the acceptance of the software license. You either agree to this contract or you don't. If you don't, then contrary to what you claim, Apple _will_ refund your money. And contrary to what you say, signing a license agreement is not necessary; you agree to it by installing and using the software.

Of course you could have just hopped over to groklaw.net and read the court decision, where Judge Alsup states very clearly that the license is part of the contract between Apple and their customers.

Re:Just for fun (2, Informative)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458700)

No they will not. I dare you to buy a copy of Mac OS X from Fry's, Best Buy, or even an Apple Store and then break the seal and try to return it. They will not allow you to return open software ever. They only permit an exchange if the media is defective. That return policy is pushed on the retailers by the vendors to prevent piracy.

Since you seem to have read the Groklaw article you'll note that the judge's order had nothing to do with licensing and everything to do with copyright and the DMCA. Allow me to quote Groklaw for you:

[The] injunction includes forbidding Psystar from intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software. (Groklaw [groklaw.net] empahsis mine)

Re:Just for fun (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456816)

Yes, They could go even further and say Windows could _only_ be run on One computer only. It is their product they can do what they want with it good or not for the company. What Microsoft probably couldn't do is say with the existing versions that are already sold change the agreement and AMD can no longer use this, after they released the software and said yes they did back then.

Re:Just for fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30457002)

Actually I wouldn't be so sure about the "good or not for the company" part, there is a legal duty of care owed to the shareholders which would seem to indicate this is not the case...

Re:Just for fun (1)

timster (32400) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457304)

May be obvious, but by far the majority of Windows licenses are sold exactly that way -- bound to a single piece of hardware. You can't move the standard OEM license you got with your PC to some other PC.

Re:Just for fun (1)

ramzafl (1427815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458364)

Not true. I have done it many times before.

Re:Just for fun (3, Insightful)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456828)

They wouldn't be able to do that in a timely fashion without inviting several breach of contract lawsuits from OEMs that sell AMD PCs.

And given the sizes of Intel and Microsoft, they'd get savagely beat down by antitrust regulators before AMD's lawyers could even mail their threats. (I'm not saying that the Obama administration would be quick or harsh, but Neelie Kroes would be.)

Re:Just for fun (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456836)

Previously, only the $399 Ultimate edition of Vista could legally be run in a virtual machine. I don't think that is all that different.

Yes - but... (5, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456968)

Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

Standard answer to all these types of comment: Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and hence is subject to antitrust regulations. Apple hasn't (certainly not in computers - more debatably in music) and isn't. There really is one law for Microsoft and another for Apple.

As far as copyright is concerned. As long as the law accepts that the software you "buy" is licensed rather than owned, the copyright holder can impose whatever terms they want. The principle is no different from saying that some versions of Vista could not be used on virtual machines, or that the OEM Windows that came with your old PC can't be used on your new PC.

However, since Microsoft have ~90% of the personal computer operating system market, Intel have ~80% of the personal computer CPU market, any attempt to tie them would likely be challenged under antitrust law.

Psystar tried the antitrust line against Apple earlier in the case but it was thrown out on the grounds that Apple didn't have a dominant position in the personal computer OS market and the judge din't buy the argument that having a monopoly on the "OS X market" didn't count ("Brand X" will always have a monopoly on "Brand X" products. Duh!)

Re:Just for fun (4, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456974)

Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

There are different facets of the issue which are being largely missed or glossed over every time some brings up one of these hypotheticals: Copyright law, fair use, and first sale doctrine.

First sale doctrine allows you to resell something you bought. Fair use allows to modify or extend something you bought beyond what the original copyright holder intended or wants in certain ways. Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material. The key word being 'and'. Copyright law expressly states that permission of the copyright holder is required before modification and redistribution is allowed.

For those that would bemoan how evil Apple is for protecting their copyrighted proprietary software, realize that Open Source software is based on copyright law. For example both BSD and GPL licenses extend this modification and redistribution clause by allowing it with conditions. In the case of MS (and SCO), they cannot ignore this clause if they wish to respect copyright law.

The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights. If I've hated how The DaVinci Code ended, I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks. It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu, embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows, and releasing as MS Ubuntu.

But to answer your question, nothing prevents MS from making Windows exclusive to Intel. MS is within their legal rights to do so. Many other companies make exclusive software. Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines? What about HP-UX on non HP machines? MS does not because it doesn't make sense to their business model. Since MS does not sell computer hardware, it would mean loss of sales of software if it did.

That being said, nothing prevents you from buying a copy of AIX and installing it on a non-IBM machine. You could blog about it, rant about it on twitter. IBM has no rights to stop you. The minute you create a business to modify and resell IBM's copyrighted work, IBM would send the Nazgul against you.

Re:Just for fun (2, Funny)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457084)

"Meesa wansa cryptex!"

"Jub-jub."

Man, now that image is going to be stuck in my head aaaaaaalllllll day.

Re:Just for fun (1)

rxan (1424721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457322)

But did they actually modify OS X or did they just provide a software adapter so that it could be installed on the machine? Like how Windows runs on Macs through Boot Camp.

Seems to me that this would be allowed unless Apple tied the copyright of the hardware and software together.

Re:Just for fun (2, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457390)

Their process involving installing OS X on a Mac Mini, then installing it onto a generic PC while replacing some system software and the bootloader. Then using the generic PC to image onto other PC machines. OS X does not run on generic PCs without replacing the bootloader at least. Many hackintosh forums describe the process.

Re:Just for fun (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458660)

So they installed OS X, then installed some updates to it. Is that really modifying OS X? Suppose Dell installs Windows on a computer, then installs a patch that overwrites a file that Microsoft distributed, then resells the computer. Did they sell a modified version of Windows? Is it a derivative work?

If not, how is what Psystar did any different?

Re:Just for fun (2, Insightful)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458880)

So they installed OS X, then installed some updates to it. Is that really modifying OS X? Suppose Dell installs Windows on a computer, then installs a patch that overwrites a file that Microsoft distributed, then resells the computer. Did they sell a modified version of Windows? Is it a derivative work?

If not, how is what Psystar did any different?

Difference is, Apple is in the business of tying their products together even more closely than Microsoft could ever dream of. They have draconian licensing in place to ensure that you only use specific software on specific hardware and do not modify it. Remember, Apple is both a hardware and a software company. While Microsoft does sell hardware (e.g. mouses) they do not sell whole computers. Compared to Apple, they are actually much more permissive about what you can and cannot modify per the license agreement.

Microsoft has agreements with companies such as Dell that do sell hardware that allow them to modify the operating system and installed software to some extent. This is how you get the mouthful "Microsoft Internet Explorer provided by Dell" in your title bar.

Apple would never allow that -- I imagine allowing any other company to modify the MacOS operating system or their hardware would give Steve Jobs a heart attack.

Re:Just for fun (0)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457410)

Neither fair use nor first sale allows you to both modify and resell copyrighted material.

I think that what Psystar was selling was a means (read: tool) to modify the OSX software. That is, modification is left as a final step to be performed by the end-user. Of course they sell that tool bundled with the OSX software.

Re:Just for fun (2, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457874)

The way this issue has been reported on in the past here, they most certainly did not do that - they supplied the modified OS X pre-installed on the machine.

Re:Just for fun (4, Informative)

crmarvin42 (652893) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458002)

No, you are wrong.

They are trying to weasel around the injuction by doing what you describe NOW, but originally they were selling PC's with OSX pre-installed. That means that Pystar was doing the illegal modification and re-distribution. The RebelEFI product they came out with recently is an attempt to shift the burden of legal responsibility to their customers.

The legal status of RebelEFI was not decided explicitly by the courts injunction, but the Judge indicated that he doubted it would be exempt from the degree, and that Pystar proceeded with its sale at its own peril. That is because selling tools to circumvent DRM is as illegal as doing the circumvention yourself. That the RebelEFI is reported by some to be ripped off work from the Hackintosh community just makes Pystar that much more reprehensible IMO. Many can get behind the idea of "Screw the Man", but they appear to be trying to "Screw the Masses" as well.

Re:Just for fun (2)

henrik.falk (912694) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457914)

Can you run AIX on non-IBM machines?

Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Network_Server [wikipedia.org]

Re:Just for fun (1)

mjpaci (33725) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458226)

Wow. Blast from the past. Nice catch.

Re:Just for fun (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458278)

Didn't know about that one. My point was IBM dictates the exclusivity of AIX on hardware. In this case, I would think Apple got permission from IBM before they sold this server.

Re:Just for fun (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458402)

The ramifications of an Apple loss would have been disastrous to copyright in general as well as Open Source. It would mean that anyone could take someone else's work, modify it and sell it as their own without regard to copyrights. If I've hated how The DaVinci Code ended, I could republish it with Ewoks and JarJar Blinks. It would mean nothing would stop MS from taking Ubuntu, embracing and extending it with proprietary locks that worked only with Windows, and releasing as MS Ubuntu.

What is wrong with republishing a work with a better ending? [howitshouldhaveended.com]

Re:Just for fun (1)

eelke_klein (676038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457494)

Propably not

However if they made some software for some Microsoft branded computer they would be allowed to limit the use of that software to that computer.

Re:Just for fun (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457760)

Funny you say that. I've been curious if someone has been behind the company, financially supporting maybe their legal time to test the waters of the issue.

Re:Just for fun (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457852)

What if microsoft added a clause that XBox OS could only be run on an XBox?

Re:Just for fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30457944)

Just for fun..

Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

It would be still be legal to sell AMD machines with windows on (the hardware), since MS doesn't own the machine itself, you bought it and you can do what you like with it. But it would be illegal to sell (or give away) the copy of windows that was running on that machine, since you must follow the terms of the software license.

Psystar were basically arguing the former, and Apple were arguing the latter. Apple won.

Re:Just for fun (3, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458004)

Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?

They already do, just not exactly as you stated.

It is already illegal to take an OEM Windows license from one PC and install it on any other PC.
In that sense the license is definitely tied to ONE computer.

It is a sad state of things and probably shouldn't be this way, but it has been law for long before Apple (or even Microsoft) started doing this.

Re:Just for fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30458614)

If Windows did not run on AMD machines without requiring a patch, then yes, resellers wouldn't have a legal way to sell preloaded Windows on AMD machines. If Windows did run without a patch, then no, it wouldn't be illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows.

If you can't get the job done without creating and distributing a derived work, then you're going to trigger copyright law and then need a friendly license that allows you to get your job done. If the license doesn't allow it and copyright law doesn't allow it, you're screwed.

WIN! (1)

Khris (1010709) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456646)

Who didn't see this happening (other than Psystar)?

x86 (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30456656)

Heh. What would've happened if they weren't able to create IBM PC Clones in the '80s? Today's computing world would've looked a lot different, I suppose.

Re:x86 (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457056)

There is a difference in creating a clone and copyright infringement. Compaq created the first IBM clones by reverse engineering IBM machines. That is, the machine functioned like an IBM machine but the machine was designed and made by Compaq. It used some of the same chips as IBM but it was a Compaq creation (different MB, case, power, etc). What Psystar did would be analogous if Compaq bought an IBM PC, changed a few chips, put it in a new case, and resold it as Compaq's IBM PC.

Re:x86 (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457216)

And if something went wrong, most people would have called IBM for technical support.

Re:x86 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30457780)

No they would not. They would have called the company they purchased the device from.

Re:x86 (2, Insightful)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458342)

No, clearly you have no idea how idiots work

Re:x86 (1)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458164)

And if something went wrong, most people would have called IBM for technical support.

Why? Would they have not called the manufacturer or the seller of the equipment instead? And as these were business machines, they would have had a support contract in place. Why call IBM?

Re:x86 (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457298)

That's the problem with analogies; you can pick your analogs to prove anything.

This situation would be almost precisely analogous to Compaq cloning an IBM PC, putting it into a new case, installing IBM PC-DOS instead of MS-DOS, and reselling it as Compaq's IBM PC clone.

Which, other than the PC-DOS part, is precisely what they did. Installing PC-DOS would have changed NOTHING, except the branding on the software.

However, even this analogy is flawed too, even if it's structurally closer to the Psystar thing. IBM had, as far as I could tell, no special copyright hold over PC-DOS; it was a tailored and rebranded version of MS-DOS, and still belonged to Microsoft.

Which goes to show that the only analogies which have any hope of credibility are car and pizza analogies.

Re:x86 (1)

faffod (905810) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457826)

I have to disagree. If Paystar had reversed engineered OSX, ie completely written it from scratch without taking a single bit from Apple, then you would have the scenario that you present. Paystar took bits (actually most of them) straight from Apple. This isn't a reverse engineer situation, so your analogy is not "structurally closer"

Re:x86 (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457560)

That's not what changed the market.
Also, if Compaq -bought- IBM PC, what's wrong about doing what you said?
AFAIK, the Psystar design was a pretty generic PC hacked to work with OS X (without copying anything of Apple design, but buying some stuff Apple bought from outside suppliers), and the only thing in the setup Apple owns is OS X, which they purchase rightfully.

It's like you build PCs from 3rd party parts (high-level, no soldering involved), pick a set of parts and copyright it, despite not owning copyright on any single of the parts and not using any of it in any non-standard way.

Re:x86 (1)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457844)

What Psystar did would be analogous if Compaq bought an IBM PC, changed a few chips, put it in a new case, and resold it as Compaq's IBM PC.

Actually, that would be totally legal, because you're talking about a physical object being bought, modified and resold.

Psystar modified and resold copyrighted works without obtaining a license to do so. That's the problem.

Re:x86 (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458584)

How is installing a legally bought copy consitutes a copyright infringement?

Imagine that IBM had specified that all x86 software could be run only on IBM-branded computers.

Re:x86 (4, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457156)

Heh. What would've happened if they weren't able to create IBM PC Clones in the '80s? Today's computing world would've looked a lot different, I suppose.

...and probably a lot more healthy than the PC monoculture, with a diversity of different platforms and applications which (by necessity) exchanged data in standardized formats. The big snag of the IBM PC "standard" was that it wasn't really a standard - just a closed proprietary system that got cloned.

Anyway, the PC clone makers did face legal challenges - but unlike Psystar they were able to prove that they'd produced a work-alike version of IBM's ROMs without infringing copyright (by using a scurpulous "clean-room" programming process). Also, Microsoft was more than happy to license them MSDOS (which always had been available as a standalone product - there were many non-PC MSDOS machines around at the time).

It is Apple's system to do this with (1)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456706)

Apple is within their rights to do this. If consumers thought it was a problem then it would impact Mac sales for Apple. Based on those sales, it does not appear consumers care. So it goes.

Re:It is Apple's system to do this with (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30456788)

The vast majority of consumers do not buy Apple machines so perhaps it does have an impact.

ultimate consipiracy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30456726)

everyone wonders who was paying for psystar behind the scenes and now an obvious answer is.. Apple itself.

Think about it, you've moved your software over to intel and now have no way of stopping people using it on any hardware out there. So you fund a small startup to start selling these machines and then sue them into the ground AND get a precedent that selling clones of your hardware is illegal!

WIN WIN you got a trickle of income from the startup while it was in operation and that most wonderful of things precedent to stop others ever doing it again!

Re:ultimate consipiracy (1)

intheshelter (906917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456824)

Nice theory. On a related note I hear the Flat Earth Society is looking for new members. You may want to apply and supply them with a copy of your last post. Something tells me they will fast-track your membership application.

Re:ultimate consipiracy (1)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456880)

So,.... shoot yourself in the foot to establish that shooting yourself in the foot is bad?

right, that does it (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30456732)

Every item I now produce and sell will be accompanied by an envelope only obvious once the buyer has brought it home. When the envelope is opened, it provides a series of restrictions on the person's use and re-sale of the product, not made known to them at the point of purchase.

Because I have copyright to the designs in the product, I am (apparently) allowed to define how the product is used and sold, not just how it is copied.

EULA ahoy!

Live with it... (2, Informative)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457270)

Every item I now produce and sell will be accompanied by an envelope only obvious once the buyer has brought it home.

That's already the case with virtually any product more technically sophisticated than a bunch of banannas. Come to think of it, when I buy a bunch of bannanas and pay with my debit card, the checkout flashes up the mystic runes "Refer to terms." :-(

Apple is just playing the game by the rules in force. Every other non-FOSS software house tells you what you can and can't do with "your" copy, too.

Oh, and to be fair, the outside of the box for OS X does say quite clearly that you need a Macintosh computer to use it.

Re:Live with it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30457898)

Every item I now produce and sell will be accompanied by an envelope only obvious once the buyer has brought it home.

That's already the case with virtually any product more technically sophisticated than a bunch of banannas.

So? I can print a set of terms on my t-shirt saying that by reading this t-shirt you agree to sex me. What matters is not what I write, but whether I can use a Court to make the words on my t-shirt have any legal meaning. Fortunately, no contract can make you have sex with me, and looking at my t-shirt doesn't count as agreement with whatever is written on it.

Apple is just playing the game by the rules in force.

No. EULA terms are both accepted and rejected by various courts in various jurisdictions. The majority of jurisdictions globally have never enforced any click-through EULA term. Apple is helping innovate pro-EULA precedent; it's not playing by any rules.

(Also, what is it with morally bankrupt justification of something by whether it is legal? You realise that corporations only have to strive to do what they say they will do, and that there is no obligation to make a profit at all costs, yes?)

Oh, and to be fair, the outside of the box for OS X does say quite clearly that you need a Macintosh computer to use it.

Telling me what's supported is not the same thing as telling me what could result in legal force against me if I don't comply.

The only question is (0, Redundant)

garethharris (1292166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456744)

who funded this exercise and why?

Re:The only question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30456878)

who funded this exercise and why?

well, if you are looking for conspiracy theories, the best I've heard so far, actually making the most sense looking at who is gaining from this, is from a poster above you: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1479918&cid=30456726 [slashdot.org]

first sale (1, Redundant)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#30456808)

Sad, the whole case should have hinged upon whether Psystar was buying their copies of Mac OS X.

The judge should have thrown *this* case out based upon the doctrine of first sale. In response, Apple should have then changed their upgrade path to "free for people with genuine Apple hardware", sued psystar a second time. Apple should have then won easily once their upgrade path no longer required a "sale".

Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate Mac OS X disk into each machine, retarded.

Re:first sale (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457116)

The judge should have thrown *this* case out based upon the doctrine of first sale.

First Sale doctrine does not allow anyone to modify and redistribute someone else's copyrighted work without permission. If Psystar sold boxes of unopened OS X and a computer with no OS and a copy of their software to install OS X onto the blank computer, it would be another matter. The fact they modified OS X to run on a generic PC means they have to get permission of the original copyright owner (Apple) before they make it a business to resell it.

Re:first sale (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457508)

"If Psystar sold boxes of unopened OS X and a computer with no OS and a copy of their software to install OS X onto the blank computer, it would be another matter."

If they sold their clone with two DVD drives and set it to boot one with a Linux live CD , they might be able to modify the installation on the fly instead of requiring a modified OS X image.

Psystar wouldn't be producing a modified product because the customer could perform the actual installation. The boot DVD could include various other options such as live Linux rescue, memory testing, etc.

Anyone geeky enough to want an Apple clone should be able to handle installing their operating system.

Re:first sale (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457774)

First Sale doctrine does not allow anyone to modify and redistribute someone else's copyrighted work without permission.

This is the part that annoys me, Did Apple include the source code to OS X? If not, how could they have committed copyright infringement? They did not copy ANYTHING, they modified a program(s)?

A program is compiled set instructions, it is a machine, a machine does not have copyrights they use patents. If we were talking about a car you don't see GM out there declaring custom parts as breaking their copyright on their engines!

Re:first sale (2, Insightful)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458170)

First sale clearly should allow modification of copyrighted works though. If you mod a bike, you can resell it. If you mod a MacBook, you can resell it. etc.

You don't seem to understand that this case will be used by all manor of assholes to attack all sorts of legitimate mods, possibly even classical first sale situations like cars.

Apple should have won the case eventually, but *only* by modifying their business practice to thoroughly avoid "selling" the OS alone. Apple cannot be compelled to sell the OS alone since they are not a monopoly, btw.

Re: first sale and modified works (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458894)

There are several ways to avoid the restriction on reselling modified works. Generally speaking, you have to sell the work to the end user before any modification occurs. Once the user owns a copy of the software, you *can* legitimately make modifications on his or her behalf such that the copy can be utilized on a single machine. When the end user takes physical possession is irrelevant. cf. 17 USC 117(a) [bitlaw.com] .

Re:first sale (1, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457242)

There is no doctrine of first sale since software is usually licensed. Two different things.

Re: first sale vs. EULAs (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458800)

So they say. In reality, a retail EULA is mostly an exercise in wishful thinking.

At least half of the courts that have addressed the question in the United States have held that retail end user license agreements are legal fictions, because the copy is indeed actually owned by the buyer, and as such a license to use that which you already own is unnecessary (and hence superfluous). See here [cyberlawcases.com] , for example.

Re:first sale (1, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457346)

"Sad."

Not really.

If people want software freedom they should use Free and Open software, and every
attempt by Apple and Microsoft to micromanage their products is good news.

I'm fine with Apple blocking clone makers. It doesn't inconvenience me in the least since I don't
use Apple products or crave their operating system, however good they may be.

yeah (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458016)

Fair enough, but the legal precedent against the doctrine of first sale is still bad news. As I said, Apple should have won eventually, just not this easily.

Re:first sale (4, Informative)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457518)

The judge should have thrown *this* case out based upon the doctrine of first sale.

Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate Mac OS X disk into each machine, retarded.

Well, no, the case hinged on the fact that Psystar loaded an image of OSX (permissible format shifting), modified the image (permissible fair use), and then copied that image (impermissible reproduction), and sold the modified image (impermissible creation and distribution of a derivative work). But sure, go on believing that the judge is a moron who doesn't understand network installs, in spite of the fact that he's expressly referred to them twice in his decisions. I'm sure you know better.

Re:first sale (0, Flamebait)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457622)

Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate Mac OS X disk into each machine, retarded.

No - when monkey sticks disc into machine, monkey makes a second copy of the software (on the hard drive). If that machine's not an Apple, you've violated your licence - go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

"First sale" means that, if they destroy all the other copies, they can re-sell the original disc. That's all.

There is still room for Psystar 2 to do things the (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457194)

There is still room for Psystar 2 to do things the right way that may take longer (as they will not use a image) but is in the law.

Re:There is still room for Psystar 2 to do things (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457530)

Or do it the same way and open up shop outside the US where the DMCA doesn't exist.

Re:There is still room for Psystar 2 to do things (2, Informative)

dbet (1607261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457566)

Right. Their mistake was modifying OSX. I don't see what would prevent them from selling a computer, a sealed retail copy of OSX, and a short explanation of how to install it.

Re:There is still room for Psystar 2 to do things (1)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458046)

They aren't authorized to sell OSX at all, shrink wrapped or not, and the judge put an injunction on them to prevent them from doing so.

What they can do is offer a patch on their site. Users can buy OSX at the crapple store, download their patch, patch the OS and do what they want with their copy.

That's all they need to do to get around the DMCA. Good luck going after users...

Re:There is still room for Psystar 2 to do things (1)

butlerm (3112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458666)

That is the point of "Psystar 2". What is to stop the owners from forming a new corporation, acquiring the operations of the original Psystar, and proceeding on a more cautious basis, with the legal ability to sell unmodified copies of Mac OS X?

Backwards.... (2, Interesting)

Viewsonic (584922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457258)

Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines? How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines? The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?

What?

Re:Backwards.... (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457534)

Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines? How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines? The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?

What?

Companies that have been convicted of anti-trust violations have different laws applied to them. This is a newsflash from 1930.

Re:Backwards.... (2, Insightful)

fracai (796392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457752)

Because Apple didn't tell Psystar that they could sell OS X machines as long as they didn't sell Windows or Linux machines as well. They just said, "You can't sell OS X machines."

This has nothing to do with monopolies or anti-trust.

Re:Backwards.... (4, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457926)

Wasn't the whole Microsoft thing getting fined because Microsoft were telling vendors they couldn't sell their OS if those vendors also sold Linux on the same machines? How is this any different with Apple telling vendors they can't sell OSX on machines? The judge is saying Apple can sell their OS on only their machines, while telling Microsoft they can't?

Basic copyright law. Copyright law allows you to tell people what they can do with _your_ software. Microsoft tried to prevent people from installing Linux. Linux is not Microsoft software. Microsoft has no right to tell anyone what they can do with their Linux software. Apple told people what they can do with MacOS X, which is Apple's software. Apple has every right to tell you what you can do with Apple's software. And Apple allows and even supports installation of Windows and Linux on Apple computers.

Too bad the DMCA goes against copyright law... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30457264)

It has no mechanisms to allow for encrypted content to come into the public domain after the copyright term has expired.
Without said mechanisms, it essentially extends copyrights to eternity through making decrypting illegal forever.
We need to have publicly available keys that when the copyright term is over, unlocks the content for all future use.

Re:Too bad the DMCA goes against copyright law... (1)

codegen (103601) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457506)

It has no mechanisms to allow for encrypted content to come into the public domain after the copyright term has expired.

Since you don't seem to have figured it out yet, the copyright term will *never* expire. Congress will keep extending it retroactively every 10 years.

Future Monopoly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30457328)

Would this be the same legal system that will be bringing antitrust charges against Apple at some point in the future?

open source it (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457428)

well now that it is illegal, they might as well open source it...

Man, I can't stand what Apple has become (3, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30457690)

Steve Jobs should be beaten to a pulp. So many people hate Microsoft for the what they did yet are Apple fanboys at the same time whom are doing the same @#$%ing thing!

I think Apple makes some nice products, but I absolutely despise Steve Jobs and how he has cloned Apple into Microsoft 2.0. I hope they get crushed by the EU and at some point the US for anti-competitive practices.

Re:Man, I can't stand what Apple has become (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30458158)

Please elaborate on how you find this to be a bad thing rather than randomly attacking companies without any basis.

Re:Man, I can't stand what Apple has become (1, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458556)

Apple is the most evil, anti-competitive company in the industry. If the company went under today, it would only be a good thing for the world.

re: hated for Steve Jobs WHY? (4, Insightful)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 4 years ago | (#30458568)

I guess I don't follow your "logic" here?

Apple is essentially running their business the SAME way *all* personal computer businesses did back in the 1980's, before the "PC clone" became the de-facto standard machine. Many of the people I encounter who have a strong dislike of Microsoft are simply saying they hate the way the company's products homogenized everything in the personal computer world. They essentially got things to the point where you either ran Microsoft's OS and flagship applications (like Office), or else your alternatives were pretty much all non-commercial products developed by community (like Linux or BSD). These people LIKE Apple because they're the last holdout of the "old way" of selling computers, where each manufacturer had a proprietary system that they tried to enhance and prove was the "best way" to use a computer. They're pretty much the last relevant competitor to Microsoft products that goes "toe to toe" with them, claiming they offer an "easy to use" solution appropriate for anybody -- even opening hundreds of retail stores to ensure the "average Joe" can view and purchase their offerings locally (since Microsoft products had that same visibility on store shelves everywhere).

In my mind, Apple is *far* from becoming "Microsoft 2.0". For starters, Steve Jobs has stated on multiple occasions that he has no interest in having the MOST market-share. He's not interested in playing the "grow as fast as possible, as large as possible" game. Sure, he wants Apple to be successful and its market-share to grow ... but if being the "biggest" was his true goal, why would he sit on HUGE cash reserves and not re-invest them in growing the company larger? Additionally, he's refrained from putting any type of Product Activation in any version of OS X. There's not even so much as a CD key to be entered. It simply verifies you're trying to install it on a machine Apple actually built for the purpose, and installs with no hassles. Apple is able to do that primarily because they actually sell their own computer systems, unlike Microsoft. (Hey, another difference!)

I'm not defending Steve Jobs on a personal level. I get the idea that like many successful CEO types, he's arrogant, demanding, and tends to be rude and judgmental. (I'd also question his claimed religious beliefs, given the realities of his lifestyle and character ... but maybe that's a bit unfair, since religion is such a personal thing to begin with.) But none of that is really relevant to whether or not I think he's running his company well. I think without Steve Jobs stepping in, Apple would be dead or at best, completely irrelevant today.

My mind must be in the gutter again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30458358)

Raise your hand if you misread that title as "... Injunction Against Pornstar".

/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?