- Friday, 20 November 2009
- INQ Mobile
- RSS
Intel can't compete with charcoal - Bob Colwell, former Intel chief architect
Psystar loses to Apple
FRUIT-THEMED PROPRIETARY CRUSADER Apple has won its court battle against upstart Psystar, which dared to disagree with the will of Steve Jobs.
Psystar opened its doors a couple of years ago operating under the premise that people who paid for software could chose what machine they ran it on. It flogged cheap computers running Jobs' Mobs operating systems.
This naïve view attacked the very core of Apple, which believes that users should only buy what Steve Jobs tells them and pay over the odds for expensive gear.
Now, according to Groklaw, it seems that in the David and Goliath battle the Apple giant is not at all bothered by the sling-stones of outrageous fortune.
Apple won a motion for summary judgement which effectively finishes off most of Psystar's argument.
At the Northern District Court of California, the robed but not bewigged one, Judge William Alsup, found for Apple on every count that he ruled upon.
Judge Alsup ruled that Psystar had violated Apple's rights to reproduce OS X and distribute it, and had created derivative works.
Judge Alsup orginally allowed Psystar to alter its suit to address alleged copyright misuse by Apple.
However he noted that Psystar did not defend its right to modify the OS X for limited purposes, as it has a right to do. The judge also ruled out a "fair use" defence.
Psystar claimed it had the right to sell OS X as part of the first-sale doctrine. The judge ruled that any copies were not made with the permission of Apple so that argument was up the swannie.
Copies installed on the Open Computers did not even match up with the "backup copies" sold together with the computers, the judge noted. In short, sometimes Psystar used hot copies.
The bootloader added to the Open Computers would render the computers unusable if they were removed which means that Psystar's product was an infringing, derivative work.
The judge also found for Apple on the issues of contributory infringement, copyright misuse, and violation of the DMCA.
While Apple has not formally asked for an injunction against the sale of Psystar's products, it raised claims for breach of contract, induced breach of contract, trademark dilution, infringement, and other breaches of California law, and those claims can proceed to trial, the judge said.
Apple however can be pleased with the result, which will probably finish off Psystar and its heretic ways, as well as uphold the strength of software licences, which all in all is a good thing. µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
This isn't very surprising considering half the reason to Apples success is their fusion of software and hardware together (vs. Microsoft's success of software with whatever the heck you want it to run on).
I do feel a bit sad for Psystar though, even if they had it coming since day one.
It's sad to hear that Psystar used hot copies. That would invalidate every defense for the company. Even if they had legit copies and just messed up their installation vs included discs, they shot themselves in the foot.
You know, they could have just sold a legit copy of OSX alongside a computer that had the bootloader pre-installed, and let the customer install OSX themselves. Then, Psystar would have been a pure OSX reseller, nothing more.
@Christian: Apple's past success was a nich market in multimedia, that nich is gone. Apple's current success is due to marketing - and so is Microsoft's.
Are we supposed to cry when a member of the hardware mafia loses against another member of the hardware mafia?!
snore...inq should be banned from reading hardware newsfeeds.
It's equivalent to "liberal" (read poor) college professors taking money from a gov't backed NGOs to push an extremist propaganda. Guess which gov'ts...
These gov'ts must be thinking so many whores so little time.
Does this mean I have to install Windows 7 on my Haclint0sh?
Dave - do you even realize what website you are on? We would cry if AMD lost against Intel, we'd even shed a tear if VIA closed doors. Heck, people are still crying about the Alpha chip. Same with Nvidia vs ATI (it's AMD, DAAMIT) So, yes, we cry every time.
As for the rest of your post, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Again, do you even realize what website you are on?
"You know, they could have just sold a legit copy of OSX alongside a computer that had the bootloader pre-installed, and let the customer install OSX themselves. Then, Psystar would have been a pure OSX reseller, nothing more."
That is not correct. The judge specifically alluded to contributory infringement. What you are proposing would be about as clear a case of contributory infringement as I've ever seen. Basically, the judge ruled that Apple is entitled to be the one to benefit from their billions of dollars in investment and that Psystar can't ride their coattails without permission - which is a great decision for innovators across the country.
Why are we supposed to feel sorry for Psystar? What they did was illegal and anyone with half a brain should have seen this coming a long time ago.
You can't just ignore a software license. Apple says if you want to use their software, you use it on their computers. If you don't want to use their software, don't. I'm sure if they thought they'd make more money opening it up, they would, but they don't, so they didn't.
If I gather the money and resources to write an OS and I want to dictate that it can only be used on certain hardware, that's my right.
Apple is in the right here, Psystar is in the wrong. It's not David vs. Goliath. Psystar is nothing but common thieves.
You sure about that, Nick?
http://www.osnews.com/story/22493/Apple_Scores_Massive_Win_in_Psystar_Case
really makes little difference. It doesn't take much to install apple OS on a PC. I don't see why anyone would want to do this but then again I use computers to get things done, they are not a life style or the centre of my world.
I lost the USB charger/sync cable for my iPod shuffle. The Apple store said they could order me a new one for just a few dollars less than buying a new shuffle that comes with a cable.....I bought a new shuffle so now I have two players and one cable.
Apple is insane with their prices!
@stalin
I thought everyone knew that spares were expensive from the manufacturer. If you buy all the parts for a car from the manufacturer, it's something like 5 times the price of a new car (not even counting the labor to put it together). If you buy all the parts for a computer from a manufacturer (ANY manufacturer), it's probably at least 5 times as much as buying a new computer. That complaint isn't unique to Apple.
However, with about 30 seconds of research, you would have found that you could buy that cable for $0.99 (including shipping) on eBay.
@Joe
Dude. In true conformist form, your answer flows from the proverbial buttocks of Apple Itself – Have you ever repaired/fixed/constructed a new computer from scratch? Or made your own modifications to your car? Bad and poor choices for comparisons. Ever seen an add quoting “direct from manufacturer” and having a higher then normal price? Not I.
You should have taken your own advice and done 30 seconds of your “research” and you would have found out how less expensive it is to make your own modifications or repairs to your car, or modify/build your own computer from scratch. I doubt your research via some Apple search engine would come u with much.
Using Ebay to compare prices with anything is like apples to oranges (pun intended) and a fruitless effort, you might as well compare quality directly to price and fail.
Again dude. Next time take your own advice, but I suspect you will simply go play with your ImAc or iPhOnE life justifying/conformist device that does half the job of what it intends, for the hysterical price you paid and the rest of us will save our pennies like good little ppl.
The above complaint will always be directed and “unique” to Apple, this will never change until they or some1 else, pulls down the swarticker.
One button mouse, give me a break lol; had to be said.
Rant for the Month over.
SMC