Filed under: Apple Corporate, Hardware
Apple sues Psystar for license violations, copyright infringement
Apple filed the complaint in a federal district court in California saying that Psystar violated its shrink-wrap license and trademarks. Apple is also alleging copyright infringement. In recent months, Psystar had begun cloning Mac OS X servers, which definitely made us feel a little uneasy about this small company.
[via Engadget]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
jim said 1:09PM on 7-15-2008
Finally! It's time to keep the riff raff out.
Reply
Joseph Crawford said 1:12PM on 7-15-2008
I saw this coming as soon as I heard about it. The non-response from Apple made me think that they were just keeping quite while getting everything together for the suit.
I am glad to see this happening. Although I do not feel that OS X should be tied to only Apple hardware.
Reply
noza said 1:30PM on 7-15-2008
Buh-bye, Psystar. Nice knowin' ya, hope it's been a fun ride...
Reply
justinwr said 1:48PM on 7-15-2008
[insert "fan boy sticking up for mother Apple" comment here]
Reply
Andrew said 2:46PM on 7-15-2008
Excuse me? This is the kind of comment I expect to see on Engadget. This is TUAW after all, fans have a right to speak their mind too. Although you hardly need to be a fanboy to agree with Apple's business decisions.
(01) said 9:26PM on 7-15-2008
Did you get lost and got to the real TUAW instead of engadget? I don't know, I just feel a little weird having OS X installed on anything but Apple hardware....Like eating filet mignon off a burger king box.
KA said 8:42AM on 7-16-2008
Nope. The Engadget comments are much worse.
MadMike said 1:47PM on 7-15-2008
Hey, they came out and were very cocky saying that they have a good shot at winning a lawsuit if Apple would ever file it.
Think of all the overextended too far reaching EULAs. Companies are cocky and think that the rules don't apply to them. They force conditions on us, like they are some sort of legislative agency. However, most people don't have the balls to take them on.
Here comes Psystar. They think they can change the status quot.
I guess time will tell.
Reply
james said 2:13PM on 7-15-2008
i'm completely in line with you on that. i'm not necessarily pro or against psystar. but i'm very interested to see what happens in the case.
a grocery store can't sell somebody a banana with some text on it that says "don't eat this in somebody else's grocery store" and expect to win every time.
i'm pretty excited, in general, about the idea of the mac OS on other machines, if for no other reasons than a) research and b) pushing the marketplace.
also, what if psystar changed their strategy a little? what if they sold the machines, and as a "bonus gift" installed the mac OS for free as a friendly trick. what then?
hm...
james said 2:14PM on 7-15-2008
i'm completely in line with you on that. i'm not necessarily pro or against psystar. but i'm very interested to see what happens in the case.
a grocery store can't sell somebody a banana with some text on it that says "don't eat this in somebody else's grocery store" and expect to win every time.
i'm pretty excited, in general, about the idea of the mac OS on other machines, if for no other reasons than a) research and b) pushing the marketplace.
also, what if psystar changed their strategy a little? what if they sold the machines, and as a "bonus gift" installed the mac OS for free as a friendly trick. what then?
hm...
chigaze said 5:56PM on 7-15-2008
Yes but a company can own the IP on a particular banana variety's DNA and deny other companies the right to grow that variety.
It will be very interesting to see where this goes.
FredThePanda said 6:50PM on 7-15-2008
To use your banana example:
What is one shop made a special banana that had a special extra metal skin that could only be eaten by someone who wore a special (and propriety) mouth guard. (i know it sounds stupid but bare with me...)
Now is it illegal for a second shop to buy these bananas direct from the first store but on the behalf of the end user (eater) remove the special skin so that the banana could be eaten without the special mouth guards but with generic ones (that the store happens to sell.....)?
I think that's a fairer analogy
james said 12:40AM on 7-16-2008
@ FredThePanda... i knew i was being simplistic with the banana. but, boy-o-boy, if i'm not in love with your illustration! it's the bomb! i think you should make it into a movie.
MoonMan said 1:05AM on 7-16-2008
@ James:
The point of the lawsuit is that Psystar, nor anyone else, can install OSX on hardware other than Apple, regardless if it's a "bonus gift".
Re-read the article and make note of the sentence: "In its license agreement, you are not allowed to run Mac OS X on any non-Apple hardware. "
justinwr said 11:35AM on 7-16-2008
Since when did Apple "make" hardware? I'm not sure about all of you, but I run OS X legally off a Toshiba hard drive... which gets thrown into Kingston memory by an Intel chip.
Chris said 5:08PM on 7-16-2008
@justinwr, uhhh, yeah, see if those semantics get you anywhere in court...
MadMike said 6:45PM on 7-16-2008
Justinwr has a point. Technically we can be sued if we use a non apple-branded hard drive or memory. Every apple part used actually has an Apple logo on it, even if it was made by a 3rd party. so technically its all Apple Hardware.
justinwr said 1:51PM on 7-15-2008
The only real reason Apple waited to sue these people was so they had some money to actually get out of them.
Reply
MoonMan said 1:10AM on 7-16-2008
Keen observation. Anyone with a shred of intelligent can follow your logic because otherwise, you can buy pre-made lawsuits from a vending machine. Those vending machine lawsuits are ready to go, meaning no time is required to research the case, or prepare a complete filing.
Yeah, they waited to get more money out of them because the iPod business is doing so poorly...
justinwr said 11:29AM on 7-16-2008
Those vending machines still cost money.
Even if I ran a multi-billion dollar company I would still try to sue a company if it was going to at least return my cost of legal fee's.
But yeah, Apple has the money to run around suing people "just to prove a point".